https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120081
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed| |2025-05-05 Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> --- Confirmed. We give up at if (!iv->no_overflow) return NULL_TREE; for the { n, +, 1 } IV. So this is a niter analysis issue (though iv->no_overflow is a bit of a 2nd class citizen)