https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120948
--- Comment #2 from huyubiao <h13958451065 at 163 dot com> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> So you say that we fail to optimize
>
> int foo (unsigned x)
> {
> unsigned tem = 1/x;
> if (x == 0)
> return 5;
> return tem;
> }
>
> because we turn 1/x into x == 1?
>
> A phase ordering issue, obviously. Relevant in practice? I'm not sure.
I believe such non-compliant code makes maintenance troubleshooting
significantly harder. Could we implement a compiler warning when x=0
potentially occurs?
