From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 74B1E385D0DB; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 23:34:08 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 74B1E385D0DB DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1666827256; bh=ty/MY7vXZVu4LiAvUcZEE+rk4ttNMkEe7vYyOb2VVQY=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=I6op8mJKziBtI60QHpi1XtB5otx1ia1Ep6TBZjHXswUL9uf3+qx5xX6qcg0kZJnfc g67hw0r5oUaxqESCa7zTxOcIp5FiVCbzLndL+pn2V+jK5df1TqmsOwUI2LQ1xcwpC9 iFOCs/ltCxfvlMJZtfT/mnj2X67xBy1qxcQii1no= From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/105661] Comparisons to atomic variables generates less efficient code Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2022 23:34:08 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: rtl-optimization X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.1.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia 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: dependson bug_status everconfirmed bug_severity component cf_reconfirmed_on Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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 List-Id: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D105661 Andrew Pinski changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |50677 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0 |1 Severity|normal |enhancement Component|target |rtl-optimization Last reconfirmed| |2022-10-26 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- The aarch64 issue is not really a big difference but it is the same issue really. Basically we don't optimize anything related to volatile memory even into t= he address part. This is basically PR 50677 really. Referenced Bugs: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D50677 [Bug 50677] volatile forces load into register=