From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-334168-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 1491 invoked by alias); 19 Oct 2010 03:25:45 -0000
Received: (qmail 1458 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Oct 2010 03:25:44 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID,TW_VZ,TW_ZB
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 03:25:40 +0000
From: "hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/46076] [4.6 regression] constant propagation and compile-time math no longer happening versus 4.4 and 4.5
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
In-Reply-To: <bug-46076-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-46076-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 03:25:00 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2010-10/txt/msg01557.txt.bz2
Message-ID: <20101019032500.i2UqDjO9KwVaXbpIxLvFzhZFiaC5Raz4AVl7Bj0xDiw@z>

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46076

--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-10-19 03:25:37 UTC ---
Also renaming main() to main2() so GCC no longer  can track the runtime
behaviour leads to:
   0:   53                      push   %rbx
   1:   bb 00 00 00 00          mov    $0x0,%ebx
   6:   ff d3                   callq  *%rbx
   8:   bf 00 00 00 00          mov    $0x0,%edi
   d:   0f b6 f0                movzbl %al,%esi
  10:   31 c0                   xor    %eax,%eax
  12:   e8 00 00 00 00          callq  17 <main2+0x17>
  17:   ff d3                   callq  *%rbx
  19:   0f b6 f0                movzbl %al,%esi
  1c:   bf 00 00 00 00          mov    $0x0,%edi
  21:   31 c0                   xor    %eax,%eax
  23:   83 c6 01                add    $0x1,%esi
  26:   bb 00 00 00 00          mov    $0x0,%ebx
  2b:   e8 00 00 00 00          callq  30 <main2+0x30>
  30:   ff d3                   callq  *%rbx
  32:   bf 00 00 00 00          mov    $0x0,%edi
  37:   0f b6 f0                movzbl %al,%esi
  3a:   31 c0                   xor    %eax,%eax
  3c:   e8 00 00 00 00          callq  41 <main2+0x41>
  41:   ff d3                   callq  *%rbx
  43:   0f b6 f0                movzbl %al,%esi
  46:   bf 00 00 00 00          mov    $0x0,%edi
  4b:   31 c0                   xor    %eax,%eax
  4d:   83 c6 01                add    $0x1,%esi
  50:   e8 00 00 00 00          callq  55 <main2+0x55>
  55:   31 c0                   xor    %eax,%eax
  57:   5b                      pop    %rbx
  58:   c3                      retq   
  59:   0f 1f 80 00 00 00 00    nopl   0x0(%rax)

that is 89 bytes.
What is the problem with the proprietary and complex code?