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 43E94385AC33; Tue, 12 Jul 2022 20:18:07 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 43E94385AC33
From: "vineet.gupta at linux dot dev" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/106265] RISC-V SPEC2017 507.cactu code bloat due to
 address generation
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2022 20:18:07 +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: 12.1.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: vineet.gupta at linux dot dev
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
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: 
Message-ID: <bug-106265-4-wJXEVKJV78@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-106265-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-106265-4@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, 12 Jul 2022 20:18:07 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D106265

--- Comment #7 from Vineet Gupta <vineet.gupta at linux dot dev> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> So why do we even emit unsupported 'li 4096' and leave it to the linker to
> "optimize(?)"?=20

li 4096 is really a pseudo-op - LUI is used to build 32-bit constants. For =
this
problem whether LI or LUI is used is just a detail.

> OTOH LRA rematerialization also could be the culprit, thinking rematerial=
izing
> the constant is cheaper than spilling a register holding it.

Thx for the pointer. I tried disabling it -fno-lra-remat and it generates
exactly same code.=