public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "jingyu at google dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/42720] Problematic condition simplification logic at unswitch-loops pass Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 23:59:00 -0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20100129235936.2198.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-42720-17567@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> ------- Comment #3 from jingyu at google dot com 2010-01-29 23:59 ------- You must set "--param max-unswitch-level=0" to trigger the bug in non-FDO use. I just tried gcc-4.2.4 on X86 platform. The problem exists. $ gcc loop.cpp -O3 --param max-unswitch-level=0 -m32 -S testl %eax, %eax jne .L5 xorl %eax, %eax .p2align 4,,7 .L7: addl $1, %eax <--- empty loop cmpl %edx, %eax jne .L7 xorl %ecx, %ecx By default, max-unswitch-level is 3. So if you don't change max-unswitch-level, after unswitch loop once, the conditions of nloop and loop can be simplified by recursive calls. Rather than writing a complicated test case which will do unswitch-loop 4 times, I would like to change the max-unswitch-level=0 to trigger the bug early. In FDO use, you can reproduce the bug with "-O2 -fprofile-use" on x86 with gcc-4.4.0 or higher. I have checked gcc-4.2.x. The check "if optimize_loop_for_size_p(loop)" is not in gcc-4.2.x. So gcc-4.2.x does not have this problem in FDO use. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42720
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-01-29 23:59 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2010-01-13 2:47 [Bug tree-optimization/42720] New: Empty loop generated at unswitch-loops with -O2 -fprofile-use jingyu at google dot com 2010-01-29 23:34 ` [Bug tree-optimization/42720] Problematic condition simplification logic at unswitch-loops pass jingyu at google dot com 2010-01-29 23:38 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-29 23:59 ` jingyu at google dot com [this message] 2010-01-30 0:05 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-30 0:21 ` jingyu at google dot com 2010-01-30 10:59 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-30 11:00 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-30 12:01 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-30 16:07 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-30 16:14 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-30 23:33 ` jingyu at google dot com 2010-02-02 23:57 ` jingyu at google dot com 2010-02-07 20:28 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-08 18:17 ` jingyu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-13 18:09 ` jingyu at google dot com
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=20100129235936.2198.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: linkBe 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).