https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87744

--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
            if (!__l._M_hi)
              {
                __l._M_lo %= __m;
                return __l;
              }
            auto __n = __l._M_hi ? __builtin_clzll(__l._M_hi)
                       : 64 + __builtin_clzll(__l._M_lo);
So, on the __n initializer you already know that __l._M_hi is non-zero, no need
to test it again.  Sure, the compiler will optimize it, but the shorter the
method in the header the better.

Reply via email to