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 E69113858D35; Sun,  5 Mar 2023 19:23:26 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org E69113858D35
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1678044206;
	bh=uakByR3nSi+cEzYPGABTIDXo2bepxEY2ZVBLo7BVCzg=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=G3BV3n8zeTmbXmSLtd6vn44g+zq5I/nh2V9lXVhwJky6O9ki0f4S6zXvb+sgGqJgf
	 mjJga7qWm0fk7TEhWrvs/GbKzfUp6yjvJFvi6Alic8rjid5nu83J8/hBKQxdpi1qQQ
	 /zAbRd3zzWy+jt3Eb3b1vFzUSOHRp8KmrLitHcKs=
From: "tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/106594] [13 Regression] sign-extensions no
 longer merged into addressing mode
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2023 19:23:26 +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: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization, patch
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1
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-106594-4-rTykuJ00wC@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-106594-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-106594-4@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=3D106594

--- Comment #17 from Tamar Christina <tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #13)
> Hi!
>=20
> Either this should not be P1, or the proposed patch is taking completely =
the
> wrong direction.  P1 means there is a regression.  There is no regression=
 in
> combine, in fact the proposed patch would *cause* regressions on many
> targets!
>=20

It is a regression in that it causes much worse code on AArch64. I don't
particularly care what caused the codegen regression, whether latent or new
functionality.

I just care that we get much worse code now in GCC 13 and that needs to be
fixed.=