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 8B37C3836E41; Wed,  1 Jun 2022 07:50:46 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 8B37C3836E41
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/105643] [13 Regression] Code-Size regression
 for specrate 538.imagick_r
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2022 07:50:45 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenther at suse dot de
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: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-105643-4-uqpbxaTlib@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-105643-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-105643-4@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: Wed, 01 Jun 2022 07:50:46 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D105643

--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Tue, 31 May 2022, crazylht at gmail dot com wrote:

> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D105643
>=20
> --- Comment #8 from Hongtao.liu <crazylht at gmail dot com> ---
> Looks like codesize decreased after
> r13-754-ga1c9f779f75283427316b5c670c1e01ff8ce9ced.
>=20
> Now we have cost model for unswitching loop
>=20
> decorate.c:605:25: note: not unswitching condition, cost too big (37 insns
> copied to 35 and 37)

Yes, I noticed that when comparing opt-info before/after on SPEC as
well.  Note the actual cost limit wasn't adjusted in any way, there's
still some planned improvements pending and adjusting the cost limit
is one of that.=