From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 10DF83858406; Thu, 18 Nov 2021 07:09:46 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 10DF83858406
From: "crazylht at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/103252] questionable codegen with kmovd
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2021 07:09:45 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.2.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization, ra
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: crazylht at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-103252-4-dfbv3zt2vO@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-103252-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-103252-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2021 07:09:46 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D103252

--- Comment #10 from Hongtao.liu <crazylht at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> (In reply to Jason A. Donenfeld from comment #2)
> > Here's a more minimal test case: https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/15hnsb6of
>=20
>         kmovd   k0, ecx
>         mov     ecx, DWORD PTR __libc_tsd_CTYPE_B@gotntpoff[ebx]
>         kmovd   eax, k0
>         mov     ecx, DWORD PTR gs:[ecx]
>         test    BYTE PTR 1[ecx+eax*2], 32
>=20
> vs:
>=20
>         mov     ecx, DWORD PTR __libc_tsd_CTYPE_B@gotntpoff[ebx]
>         mov     ecx, DWORD PTR gs:[ecx]
>         test    BYTE PTR 1[ecx+edx*2], 32
>=20

Why cprop_hardreg can't handle this?=