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 5FC7438493DB; Fri, 17 Feb 2023 17:21:06 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 5FC7438493DB
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1676654466;
	bh=D7GbjBnBsgCICoGdny7pyTtJzTqRtibQuMUNqvo1Rog=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=VqUaOBQA0WI/XgawHmrb6mCkBLe8buFcV0WYfIYKTVtVKX+fR+8rPi+kKH4ZyDrzg
	 iklhtL1KrLr8ojWQHgOJ/sX5WXMDv4I3nzKcu/+ZNeWBpkzBT/hfh8Ia3W5yXfh1JR
	 ZQH4zLXzipvANitJFQQAk7LIY22K4wp/bx0o3DE8=
From: "bergner at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/107949] PPC: Unnecessary rlwinm after lbzx
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2023 17:21:05 +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: 12.2.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
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: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc
Message-ID: <bug-107949-4-JEnAO0gi5B@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-107949-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-107949-4@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=3D107949

Peter Bergner <bergner at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |bergner at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #5 from Peter Bergner <bergner at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #4)
> How would GCC know no extension is needed?  The asm template is not parsed
> at all, by design.  Making h1 an unsigned char might solve it here?

The version with the inline asm isn't what Jens is worried about, that gives
the generated code he wants (ie, no rlwinm).  He asking why the fully C ver=
sion
of the test case adds the unneeded rlwinm.=