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 CA15A385829C; Fri, 23 Feb 2024 04:24:00 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org CA15A385829C
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1708662240;
	bh=/e5wP580JQY1epIXtPvAArRmt/r9vaKu0S+Hg8N6DHI=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=rUPcNFr+aZQtJQYSsNjevKrObAy2ml3uh4hNoFbygYcnZpBV3rcnht3BXpeV93JZn
	 +8JiLELKCy6doKLeLuGPt1suxEq0LH+nmmI278HawUxiSzt/viaqeO0MDZ4Il5cJpw
	 RL2M1ktJncLRc5oyeeOScBSXQTSi4+ggo17w3KXA=
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/107270] [11/12/13/14 Regression] return for structure is
 not as good as before
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 04:24:00 +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: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 11.5
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: assigned_to bug_status
Message-ID: <bug-107270-4-3FffuEnAvx@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-107270-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-107270-4@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=3D107270

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Assignee|pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org         |unassigned at gcc d=
ot gnu.org
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |NEW

--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #2)
> But this is just BFI, so it's a costing issue.

Fixing that still leaves us with:
Trying 8 -> 15:
    8: zero_extract(r100:DI,0x20,0)=3Dr107:SI#0
      REG_DEAD r107:SI
   15: x0:DI=3Dr100:DI&0xffffffff|r108:SI#0<<0x20
      REG_DEAD r108:SI
      REG_DEAD r100:DI
Failed to match this instruction:
(set (reg/i:DI 0 x0)
    (ior:DI (ashift:DI (subreg:DI (reg:SI 108) 0)
            (const_int 32 [0x20]))
        (zero_extend:DI (reg:SI 107))))

Which is a BFI but there is no pattern to match that.
I will submit my rtx_cost patch still but for now I am not going to add ano=
ther
pattern=