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/103388] [12 Regression] missed optimization for dead code elimination at -O3 (vs. -O2) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2021 23:18:11 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-103388-4-32sCgmixX6@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-103388-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103388 Jeffrey A. Law <law at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |law at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law <law at gcc dot gnu.org> --- So to fix this right we'd need to duplicate some of the logic in tree-ssa-threadupdate.c. Conceptually for block B where one or more predecessors thread to target T, you make a single copy B', and redirect *all* the relevant predecessors to B'. In addition to allowing more aggressive threading, it would also reduce codesize since currently we'll end up with multiple copies of B'. We have optimizers that are supposed to clean that up, but I've never seen them do a particularly good job. This isn't likely to land in gcc-12. An interim approach might be to go ahead and register the thread and only reject it for size later if we're going to end up with multiple copies. After all this is a cost analysis question and we don't know until all the paths are registered if it's profitable or not. Anyway, it should probably be assigned to me. Not sure if I'll get to the interim approach or not for gcc-12. I'll have to poke around a bit.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-11-23 23:18 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-11-23 18:21 [Bug tree-optimization/103388] New: " theodort at inf dot ethz.ch 2021-11-23 19:19 ` [Bug tree-optimization/103388] " aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-11-23 19:31 ` aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-11-23 23:18 ` law at gcc dot gnu.org [this message] 2021-11-24 8:50 ` [Bug tree-optimization/103388] [12 Regression] missed optimization for dead code elimination at -O3 (trunk vs 11.2.0) rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-01-18 14:24 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-01-18 15:28 ` law at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-05-06 8:31 ` [Bug tree-optimization/103388] [12/13 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-07-26 13:09 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-05-08 12:23 ` [Bug tree-optimization/103388] [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-103388-4-32sCgmixX6@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: 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).