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 187EE3858C53; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 08:21:59 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 187EE3858C53
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/105338] [12 Regression] Regression: jump or cmove
 generated for pattern (x ? CST : 0)
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 08:21:58 +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: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: FIXED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
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-105338-4-EFyYPMwat0@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-105338-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-105338-4@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: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 08:21:59 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D105338

--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to denis.campredon from comment #13)
> Thanks a lots.
>=20
> I have a question though: foo and bar are similar, foo produces a branchl=
ess
> code whereas bar uses a jump.
>=20
> int foo(int i) {
>     return !i ? 0 : -2;
> }
>=20
> int bar(int i) {
>     return i ? -2 : 0;
> }
>=20
> If I'm readding correctly in the two functions the probabilities are the
> same. Is this "normal" or worth a new ticket ?

There is the bug where cond_move_process_if_block ignores the costs and ano=
ther
where if the cost checks are added, it might be worth for the destination
overlap with comparison operand case force the comparison operand or
destination into a new temporary and add one more first or last instead of
giving up.  The costs comparison would then catch that.
So yes, it is worth a new PR, but not something that will be addressed for =
GCC
12.=