public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/110891] [14 Regression] Dead Code Elimination Regression since r14-2674-gd0de3bf9175
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2023 00:06:20 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-110891-4-l1pgq38H7Z@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-110891-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110891
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> One thing I noticed (I don't know if causes the missed optimization) is that
> we have before PRE:
> ```
> <bb 4> [local count: 1073531371]:
> if (a.0_1 != 0)
> goto <bb 6>; [50.00%]
> else
> goto <bb 5>; [50.00%]
>
> <bb 5> [local count: 536765686]:
> if (_28 == &d)
> goto <bb 9>; [30.00%]
> else
> goto <bb 7>; [70.00%]
>
> <bb 6> [local count: 536765685]:
> if (_28 == &d)
> goto <bb 9>; [30.00%]
> else
> goto <bb 7>; [70.00%]
> ```
> Which obvious should just be `if (_28 == &d) goto bb9; else goto bb7;` and
> not check `a.0_1` at all.
I wonder if ifcombine could optimize that instead of requiring PRE. I think
that might even fix the issue too.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-08-26 0:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-08-03 16:01 [Bug tree-optimization/110891] New: " theodort at inf dot ethz.ch
2023-08-03 16:03 ` [Bug tree-optimization/110891] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-08-03 16:13 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-08-04 7:59 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-08-26 0:00 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-08-26 0:06 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2023-08-26 6:35 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-08-26 6:35 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-08-27 23:46 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-08-28 6:53 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2024-03-07 23:26 ` law at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-09 7:01 ` law at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-05-07 7:41 ` [Bug tree-optimization/110891] [14/15 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=bug-110891-4-l1pgq38H7Z@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
--to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).