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 E9AC5385800C; Fri, 19 Nov 2021 17:36:47 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org E9AC5385800C
From: "segher at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/103316] PowerPC: Gimple folding of int128 comparisons
 produces suboptimal code
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2021 17:36:47 +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: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: segher at gcc dot gnu.org
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-103316-4-jsLBEvMM3E@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-103316-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-103316-4@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: Fri, 19 Nov 2021 17:36:48 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D103316

--- Comment #13 from Segher Boessenkool <segher at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #11)
> As I mentioned privately, we could do with an audit of our implementation=
 of
> standard patterns in general, since  we tend to find such missing cases m=
ore
> often than I'd like...

It would be great if there was some standard way of seeing what targets
implement (and do not implement!) what.  It will be hugely useful when
implementing a new port for example, but also great when maintaining one.=