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 56CC43858D37; Thu, 27 Apr 2023 17:50:46 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 56CC43858D37
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1682617846;
	bh=+oMozncLwqhQ9JV5htnMMlRUG3HG++flkyYAxg5iVnQ=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=Vdol6xkn6FHcLFuofKckE0yhupNHoaJMuraxhh6AlZS0NRkNv5OlRc+Vjb7rHwoZM
	 123HrcOoGlbkJjJIopYZvcl1M+Cru+VhWd4RGoqdhwXWp4KWJCTxzeaxHZPR7KXsqn
	 Vrv5ft7b/7vbVjH+UBsjfOFnp8im/036ziuhLp2g=
From: "rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/109632] Inefficient codegen when complex numbers are
 emulated with structs
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2023 17:50:46 +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: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_status cf_reconfirmed_on everconfirmed
 assigned_to
Message-ID: <bug-109632-4-jNY6MsB8X0@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-109632-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-109632-4@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=3D109632

rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org <rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |ASSIGNED
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2023-04-27
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1
           Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org      |rsandifo at gcc dot=
 gnu.org

--- Comment #8 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org <rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.or=
g> ---
Have a (still hacky) patch that also fixes the example in
comment 4, giving:

        fadd    s1, s1, s3
        fadd    s0, s0, s2
        ret

Will work on it a bit more before sending an RFC.  Can imagine
the approach will be somewhat controversial!=