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 2753B3858C60; Thu, 25 Nov 2021 20:54:49 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 2753B3858C60
From: "rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/103393] [12 Regression] Generating 256bit register
 usage with -mprefer-avx128 -mprefer-vector-width=128
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2021 20:54:48 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end
X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-103393-4-Fygak58Csy@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-103393-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-103393-4@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, 25 Nov 2021 20:54:49 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D103393

--- Comment #12 from Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> Alternatively, couldn't we check next to that new
>                  && have_insn_for (SET, mode)
> also that
>                  && known_le (GET_MODE_SIZE (mode), MOVE_MAX)
> ?

No, that would limit us to MOVE_MAX again, so what would be the point in ha=
ving
a more relaxed test earlier.

I do wonder if MOVE_MAX * MOVE_RATIO should be replaced with the MOVE_BY_PI=
ECES
infrastructure, I just haven't had time to cook up a patch to try that, tho=
ugh.=