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 723273858C00; Tue, 28 Mar 2023 16:42:17 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 723273858C00
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1680021737;
	bh=rXNio8drjS+ApH0+z2leYPS/bfYcsZco7GpySQfjdCg=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=kBBOlvLElhcHcHhWgBqgaX00uIkNrf1Xv8ZF30jLflAwMYAPMn0c95FFQp93RHdkg
	 dGsmCFgNgHYt2iojh/iaUaBDlwfMAzrx0pxGnCGWFLZnYrz1g56+GRKrzEQdqkuLJE
	 8Zw9QxFEqGRxmnWsj/OBB1zzWBSn0OnQ98SO3Ass=
From: "amacleod at redhat dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/109154] [13 regression] jump threading
 de-optimizes nested floating point comparisons
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 16:42:17 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: amacleod at redhat dot com
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: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-109154-4-1ZDwSIN3F1@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-109154-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-109154-4@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=3D109154

--- Comment #36 from Andrew Macleod <amacleod at redhat dot com> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #35)
> (In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #34)
> > I will poke at whether its possible to cheaply handle a second (or thir=
d)
> > level for single dependency defs.
>=20
> Will those include also binary ops which have one of the operands constan=
t?
> I think that would be quite useful as well, in addition to unary ops/casts
> and the like.
>=20

Yes, single dependency means single SSA name. and it may keep it linear in
cost...=