public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "law at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/102981] [12 Regression] Dead Code Elimination Regression at -O3 (trunk vs 11.2.0)
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2021 18:47:17 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-102981-4-EEZTFZ5tLj@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-102981-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102981

Jeffrey A. Law <law at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Priority|P3                          |P2

--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law <law at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I have no strong opinions about this specific testcase.  More generally I am in
agreement with Zdenek and others that the threaders should not be peeling
iterations off loops or rotating loops.

Fundamentally the threaders don't have the kind of costing model to know if
peeling an iteration off is profitable or not.  So even after the loop
optimizers are done, I'd still lean against peeling since if it was profitable
it should have been done by the loop optimizer or vectorizer.

So unless someone can show this is a significant issue in real world code, I
would  argue that it ought to be fixed by including the possibility of
eliminating unreachable code int he profitibility analysis for loop peeling by
the loop optimizers and possibly the unroller (for this specific example).

  parent reply	other threads:[~2021-11-04 18:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-10-28  9:38 [Bug tree-optimization/102981] New: " theodort at inf dot ethz.ch
2021-10-28 11:45 ` [Bug tree-optimization/102981] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-10-30  7:03 ` aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-10-30 17:42 ` aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-10-30 18:08 ` aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-11-04 18:47 ` law at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2021-11-16 20:08 ` aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-11-17  9:49 ` aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-11-23 19:19 ` aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-06  8:31 ` [Bug tree-optimization/102981] [12/13 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-08 12:22 ` [Bug tree-optimization/102981] [12/13/14 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.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=bug-102981-4-EEZTFZ5tLj@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --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).