public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/34027] [4.3 regression] -Os code size nearly doubled
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 12:37:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20071109123732.18925.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-34027-9876@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
------- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de 2007-11-09 12:37 -------
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression] -Os code size
nearly doubled
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> ------- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-09 12:30 -------
> So then shouldn't this bug be about:
> unsigned long long
> foo (unsigned long long ns)
> {
> return ns % 1000000000L;
> }
>
> unsigned long long
> bar (unsigned long long ns)
> {
> return ns - (ns / 1000000000L) * 1000000000L;
> }
>
> not compiling the same code at -Os? On x86_64 with -O2 it actually produces
> identical code with the subtraction, supposedly that's faster. Guess even
> (ns / 1000000000L) * 1000000000L should be folded into
> ns - (ns % 1000000000L).
With -O2 we express the division by the constant by multiplication / add
sequences. But for both we get the extra multiplication:
bar:
.LFB3:
movl $1000000000, %esi
movq %rdi, %rax
xorl %edx, %edx
divq %rsi
movq %rdi, %rcx
imulq $1000000000, %rax, %rdx
subq %rdx, %rcx
movq %rcx, %rax
ret
bar:
.LFB3:
movq %rdi, %rdx
movabsq $19342813113834067, %rax
shrq $9, %rdx
mulq %rdx
shrq $11, %rdx
imulq $1000000000, %rdx, %rdx
subq %rdx, %rdi
movq %rdi, %rax
ret
because we miss this folding opportunity.
Richard.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34027
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-11-09 12:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-11-08 11:39 [Bug c/34027] New: " bunk at stusta dot de
2007-11-08 21:45 ` [Bug tree-optimization/34027] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-11-09 12:15 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-11-09 12:20 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2007-11-09 12:30 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-11-09 12:37 ` rguenther at suse dot de [this message]
2007-11-10 7:58 ` bunk at stusta dot de
2007-11-10 23:54 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-11-12 13:24 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-11-12 13:28 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-11-12 15:01 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20071109123732.18925.qmail@sourceware.org \
--to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).