https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114429
Hongtao Liu <liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target| |x86_64-*-* i?86-*-*
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao Liu <liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
when x is INT_MIN, I assume -x is UD, so compiler can do anything.
otherwise, (-x) >> 31 is just x > 0.
>From rtl view. neg of INT_MIN is assumed to 0 after it's truncated.
(neg:m x)
(ss_neg:m x)
(us_neg:m x)
These two expressions represent the negation (subtraction from zero) of the
value represented by x, carried out in mode m. They differ in the behavior on
overflow of integer modes. In the case of neg, the negation of the operand may
be a number not representable in mode m, in which case it is truncated to m.
ss_neg and us_neg ensure that an out-of-bounds result saturates to the maximum
or minimum signed or unsigned value.
so we can optimize (neg a)>>31 to a>0.
