https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71608
Marc Glisse <glisse at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |wrong-code --- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse <glisse at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2) > Hmm. Doesnt -2 * x overflow? (-2) * x gives INT_MIN, no overflow there. 2*x does overflow. And we optimize the first to the second...