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 0DBB7385841B; Fri, 28 Jul 2023 12:09:16 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 0DBB7385841B
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1690546157;
	bh=CLRtpJ+s1sw4mqU+2RKAK/lIy1eFZj/6RWoHhxYrip0=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=VWL4zjRrIWp+UkQR5biWTfLbr7stu3jU4pxvaGzkx4moM4E7zbS7bcvNF1xlY5xD3
	 Fa4aJf76Ez6Ycwx65JMpXNqvLGg8QjbIw6sfI5LFUNsBI+gDh3VeqcAx9GYPgUZ2hX
	 93UwV8sWrBgTrotU8qqkF9/vn8N8DqC9yDlJ7d/I=
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/106293] [13/14 Regression] 456.hmmer at
 -Ofast -march=native regressed by 19% on zen2 and zen3 in July 2022
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2023 12:09:15 +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: missed-optimization
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: 13.3
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-106293-4-FquNoVvuwd@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-106293-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-106293-4@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
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D106293

--- Comment #20 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Fri, 28 Jul 2023, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote:

> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D106293
>=20
> --- Comment #19 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz> ---
> > This heuristic wants to catch
> >=20
> >   <sink stmt>
> >   if (foo) abort ();
> >   <place to sink>
> >=20
> > and avoid sinking "too far" across a path with "similar enough"
> > execution count (I think the original motivation was to fix some
> > spilling / register pressure issue).  The loop depth test
> > should be !(bb_loop_depth (best_bb) < bb_loop_depth (early_bb))
>=20
> I am still concenred that loop_depth (bb1) < loop_depth (bb2)
> does not really imply that bb1 is not in different loop nest with
> loop with significantly higher iteration count than bb2...

True, so it probably should be instead

  !flow_loop_nested_p (early_bb->loop_father, best_bb->loop_father)=