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)

Reply via email to