* [Bug target/23524] [4.1 Regression]bigger version of mov + cmp produced
[not found] <bug-23524-1008@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2005-10-25 20:18 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-10-27 16:26 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-10-25 20:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Severity|normal |minor
Component|rtl-optimization |target
Keywords| |missed-optimization
Summary|bigger version of mov + cmp |[4.1 Regression]bigger
|produced |version of mov + cmp
| |produced
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23524
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug target/23524] [4.1 Regression]bigger version of mov + cmp produced
[not found] <bug-23524-1008@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2005-10-25 20:18 ` [Bug target/23524] [4.1 Regression]bigger version of mov + cmp produced pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-10-27 16:26 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-10-27 16:43 ` dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu
` (11 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-10-27 16:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-27 16:26 -------
Could the dear reported at least try to provide a small test case?
I think this should not be marked as a regression. It's just sad that this
kind of non-bug keeps the regression count high, when in reality GCC 4.1
produces smaller code overall.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23524
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug target/23524] [4.1 Regression]bigger version of mov + cmp produced
[not found] <bug-23524-1008@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2005-10-25 20:18 ` [Bug target/23524] [4.1 Regression]bigger version of mov + cmp produced pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-10-27 16:26 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-10-27 16:43 ` dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu
2005-10-27 17:08 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu @ 2005-10-27 16:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #8 from dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu 2005-10-27 16:43 -------
(In reply to comment #7)
> Could the dear reported at least try to provide a small test case?
The testcase in the attachment contains only a 4 lines function:
HandleDeIconify, the rest is just fluff to allow it to compile. Granted a lot
of it can be pruned, but I don't think it stops trying to debug the problem.
> I think this should not be marked as a regression.
Why not? It is a regression.
> It's just sad that this
> kind of non-bug keeps the regression count high, when in reality GCC 4.1
> produces smaller code overall.
PR23153 tells a completely different story about codesize (at least for i686).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23524
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug target/23524] [4.1 Regression]bigger version of mov + cmp produced
[not found] <bug-23524-1008@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2005-10-27 16:43 ` dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu
@ 2005-10-27 17:08 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-10-27 17:31 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-10-27 17:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #9 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-27 17:08 -------
And CSiBE tells you the story that GCC 4.1 produces smaller code overall.
http://www.inf.u-szeged.hu/csibe/draw-diag.php?draw=sum-os&basephp=s-i686-linux
So do the SPEC benchmark boxes btw.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23524
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug target/23524] [4.1 Regression]bigger version of mov + cmp produced
[not found] <bug-23524-1008@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2005-10-27 17:08 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-10-27 17:31 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-10-27 17:34 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-10-27 17:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #10 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-27 17:31 -------
For the record, we're talking about:
1 .file "t.c"
2 .text
3 .p2align 4,,15
4 .globl foo
5 .type foo, @function
6 foo:
7 0000 55 pushl %ebp
8 0001 A1000000 movl x, %eax
8 00
9 0006 89E5 movl %esp, %ebp
10 0008 8B5508 movl 8(%ebp), %edx
11 000b 394204 cmpl %eax, 4(%edx)
12 000e 7402 je .L4
13 0010 5D popl %ebp
14 0011 C3 ret
15 .p2align 4,,7
16 .L4:
17 0012 5D popl %ebp
18 0013 E9FCFFFF jmp bar
18 FF
19 .size foo, .-foo
20 .comm x,4,4
21 .section .note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits
22 .ident "GCC: (GNU) 3.3.4 (pre 3.3.5 20040809)"
vs.
1 .file "t.c"
2 .text
3 .p2align 4,,15
4 .globl foo
5 .type foo, @function
6 foo:
7 0000 55 pushl %ebp
8 0001 89E5 movl %esp, %ebp
9 0003 8B5508 movl 8(%ebp), %edx
10 0006 8B4204 movl 4(%edx), %eax
11 0009 3B050000 cmpl x, %eax
11 0000
12 000f 7402 je .L6
13 0011 5D popl %ebp
14 0012 C3 ret
15 .p2align 4,,7
16 .L6:
17 0013 5D popl %ebp
18 0014 E9FCFFFF jmp bar
18 FF
19 .size foo, .-foo
20 .comm x,4,4
21 .ident "GCC: (GNU) 4.1.0 20051026
(experimental)"
22 .section .note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23524
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug target/23524] [4.1 Regression]bigger version of mov + cmp produced
[not found] <bug-23524-1008@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2005-10-27 17:31 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-10-27 17:34 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-10-27 17:35 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-10-27 17:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #11 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-27 17:34 -------
And FWIW there is also a problem with this insn, the length is wrong:
#(insn 11 46 47 0x2a955cc840 (set (reg:SI 0 eax [orig:61 x ] [61])
# (mem/f:SI (symbol_ref:SI ("x")) [5 x+0 S4 A32])) 44 {*movsi_1} (nil)
# (expr_list:REG_EQUIV (mem/f:SI (symbol_ref:SI ("x")) [5 x+0 S4 A32])
# (nil)))
A100000000 movl x, %eax # 11 *movsi_1/1 [length = 6]
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-10-27 17:34:42
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23524
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug target/23524] [4.1 Regression]bigger version of mov + cmp produced
[not found] <bug-23524-1008@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2005-10-27 17:34 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-10-27 17:35 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-10-27 18:08 ` dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu
` (6 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-10-27 17:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|WAITING |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|2005-10-27 17:34:42 |2005-10-27 17:35:05
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23524
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug target/23524] [4.1 Regression]bigger version of mov + cmp produced
[not found] <bug-23524-1008@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2005-10-27 17:35 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-10-27 18:08 ` dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu
2005-10-31 4:50 ` dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu
` (5 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu @ 2005-10-27 18:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #12 from dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu 2005-10-27 18:08 -------
(In reply to comment #9)
> And CSiBE tells you the story that GCC 4.1 produces smaller code overall.
> http://www.inf.u-szeged.hu/csibe/draw-diag.php?draw=sum-os&basephp=s-i686-linux
Well, it obviously depends on applications.
The point of PR23153 is to show that there is a code size regression, and all
the PRs that depend on it are showing very specific issues that cause a part of
the regression.
A more interesting test would be to see the Linux kernel size difference,
because if there's any difference there would be some people screaming
(unfortunately I won't be able to do that comparison anytime soon, hope someone
else will).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23524
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug target/23524] [4.1 Regression]bigger version of mov + cmp produced
[not found] <bug-23524-1008@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2005-10-27 18:08 ` dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu
@ 2005-10-31 4:50 ` dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu
2005-10-31 5:36 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu @ 2005-10-31 4:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #13 from dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu 2005-10-31 04:50 -------
(In reply to comment #12)
> A more interesting test would be to see the Linux kernel size difference,
There's such a comparison now in comment #8 in PR23153. It confirms the size
increase.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23524
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug target/23524] [4.1 Regression]bigger version of mov + cmp produced
[not found] <bug-23524-1008@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2005-10-31 4:50 ` dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu
@ 2005-10-31 5:36 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-11-03 6:29 ` uros at kss-loka dot si
` (3 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-10-31 5:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #14 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 05:36 -------
I don't think this PR is, in-and-of-itself, is very interesting, as it's a
1-byte size increase with -O2, which, as has been said, is not aimed at
minimizing code size. So, I'm going to close this PR -- but, leave PR 23153
open, as there look to be interesting issues there.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |WONTFIX
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23524
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug target/23524] [4.1 Regression]bigger version of mov + cmp produced
[not found] <bug-23524-1008@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2005-10-31 5:36 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-11-03 6:29 ` uros at kss-loka dot si
2005-11-03 6:42 ` dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu
` (2 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: uros at kss-loka dot si @ 2005-11-03 6:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #15 from uros at kss-loka dot si 2005-11-03 06:29 -------
(In reply to comment #11)
> And FWIW there is also a problem with this insn, the length is wrong:
>
> #(insn 11 46 47 0x2a955cc840 (set (reg:SI 0 eax [orig:61 x ] [61])
> # (mem/f:SI (symbol_ref:SI ("x")) [5 x+0 S4 A32])) 44 {*movsi_1} (nil)
> # (expr_list:REG_EQUIV (mem/f:SI (symbol_ref:SI ("x")) [5 x+0 S4 A32])
> # (nil)))
> A100000000 movl x, %eax # 11 *movsi_1/1 [length = 6]
FYI: This problem is addressed in patch at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-11/msg00116.html.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23524
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug target/23524] [4.1 Regression]bigger version of mov + cmp produced
[not found] <bug-23524-1008@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2005-11-03 6:29 ` uros at kss-loka dot si
@ 2005-11-03 6:42 ` dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu
2005-11-03 10:05 ` uros at kss-loka dot si
2005-11-03 22:32 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org
13 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu @ 2005-11-03 6:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #16 from dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu 2005-11-03 06:42 -------
(In reply to comment #15)
> (In reply to comment #11)
> > And FWIW there is also a problem with this insn, the length is wrong:
> >
> > #(insn 11 46 47 0x2a955cc840 (set (reg:SI 0 eax [orig:61 x ] [61])
> > # (mem/f:SI (symbol_ref:SI ("x")) [5 x+0 S4 A32])) 44 {*movsi_1} (nil)
> > # (expr_list:REG_EQUIV (mem/f:SI (symbol_ref:SI ("x")) [5 x+0 S4 A32])
> > # (nil)))
> > A100000000 movl x, %eax # 11 *movsi_1/1 [length = 6]
>
> FYI: This problem is addressed in patch at
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-11/msg00116.html.
Do you know if your patch also fixes this PR?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23524
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug target/23524] [4.1 Regression]bigger version of mov + cmp produced
[not found] <bug-23524-1008@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2005-11-03 6:42 ` dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu
@ 2005-11-03 10:05 ` uros at kss-loka dot si
2005-11-03 22:32 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org
13 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: uros at kss-loka dot si @ 2005-11-03 10:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #17 from uros at kss-loka dot si 2005-11-03 10:05 -------
> > FYI: This problem is addressed in patch at
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-11/msg00116.html.
>
> Do you know if your patch also fixes this PR?
Unfortunatelly no... I don't know if insn size is considered during reload.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23524
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug target/23524] [4.1 Regression]bigger version of mov + cmp produced
[not found] <bug-23524-1008@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2005-11-03 10:05 ` uros at kss-loka dot si
@ 2005-11-03 22:32 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org
13 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-11-03 22:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #18 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-03 22:32 -------
insn size is currently completely unused. It was used for producing loop
instructions.
Honza
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23524
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread