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 A82B03858D37; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 17:31:10 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org A82B03858D37
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1665423070;
	bh=zIDPsztWgh6YvYPln7CYdgOAXd6CTux6v36dS0hhqbo=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=N6xIPm6Hh2tq9RfWLbFsBUMnbfVWxVOr/5OL4V5iimYGQMTKld6ULh9xlTbDXZ0s1
	 dIipxp/TYngDaDUq80u91N+oI0K4wYXBe8/1DZIbbz8hRVMEikGq9ALVSNB7mOsCiM
	 qLePGcn91CHvf8jGsIRoGA5Bqdfw9aJrcHbKbSDw=
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/107190] [aarch64] regression with optimization
 -fexpensive-optimizations
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2022 17:31:02 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
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: component
Message-ID: <bug-107190-4-zmxAkO5Jmu@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-107190-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-107190-4@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=3D107190

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Component|rtl-optimization            |middle-end

--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I think it is the expansion of the add with overflow causing things to be
worse.
(insn 16 15 17 (set (reg:DI 102 [ _17+8 ])
        (const_int 0 [0])) -1
     (nil))

(insn 17 16 18 (parallel [
            (set (reg:CC_C 66 cc)
                (compare:CC_C (plus:DI (reg:DI 109 [ m ])
                        (reg:DI 111 [ m1 ]))
                    (reg:DI 109 [ m ])))
            (set (reg:DI 112)
                (plus:DI (reg:DI 109 [ m ])
                    (reg:DI 111 [ m1 ])))
        ]) -1
     (nil))

(jump_insn 18 17 19 (set (pc)
        (if_then_else (ltu (reg:CC_C 66 cc)
                (const_int 0 [0]))
            (label_ref 21)
            (pc))) -1
     (int_list:REG_BR_PROB 536868 (nil)))

(jump_insn 19 18 20 (set (pc)
        (label_ref 23)) -1
     (nil))

(barrier 20 19 21)

(code_label 21 20 22 3 (nil) [0 uses])

(insn 22 21 23 (set (reg:DI 102 [ _17+8 ])
        (const_int 1 [0x1])) -1
     (nil))

(code_label 23 22 24 2 (nil) [0 uses])


I don't see why we need to expand to a jump here rather than a cset?
I think there is another bug about this already too.=