From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 849263858D1E; Fri, 30 Dec 2022 23:10:39 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 849263858D1E DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1672441839; bh=Vnn86REFu78waxCcfgB+8oh2eFQFPKMYZOUSxshuvRA=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=CjME1R38k8xc0od+R325yVqNeL7hvqF1rM89bMYz0rrVY4EjFp7hsNxjLwCw0hRkq TgG40ZN8osxXbufT3lvN/eBG6t+XXt3rNJgS5++bqwovD9OBXQhbBNYf5AGoYxUSvx DUqBuoD721wuoT6ewIFtxUlzo+/1LBfWG/Qg3Ldo= From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/108255] Repeated address-of (lea) not optimized for size. Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2022 23:10:39 +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: 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: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D108255 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- I suspect r0-127773-g3e7291458b96 changed the behavior for GCC 4.9+ I have not figured out what changed the behavior for GCC 4.8 yet though. I suspect it was just a mistake that GCC 4.8 cost model was incorrect reall= y. LLVM might be not tuning correctly anyways ... Also note ICC (not ICX) does the same as GCC ... So I think this is just a LLVM issue rather than a GCC issue. Someone who knows more about the x86 processors behavior can explain more.=