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 BFD423858D33; Sat, 27 Jan 2024 01:37:07 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org BFD423858D33
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1706319427;
	bh=h9OH1fTz0oNv1k10x2Kr88f0rWPTmebGuQx6EVlSqPI=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=OwgDxl6/VsaJXIJ303PBHKaQy76Bma2DK7kKgQROQpFp9UbdWyaJD0Jpcya4I/4pN
	 Z8iHF8E527lruLDM2nZebu01icLcaYobVrgrMOvAVlMTs0O6G89eviJA2s3vVsioel
	 UV/gJSwgKmASOHaktoXM8qALf1kYER11gn0cKPmg=
From: "olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/113533] [14 Regression] Code generation
 regression after change for pr111267
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2024 01:37:06 +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: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: olegendo 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: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-113533-4-kwWvh0eORb@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-113533-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-113533-4@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=3D113533

--- Comment #13 from Oleg Endo <olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Roger Sayle from comment #12)
> It should be mentioned that the fwprop fix for PR11267 also resolved seve=
ral
> FAILs in gcc.target/sh/pr59533.c.  I mention this as tweaking the cost of
> SIGN_EXTEND in sh_rtx_costs interacts with the (redundant) extensions
> mentioned in the initial description of PR59533.

Good to know, thanks!  I'll try to look into it.


> It's still not entirely clear to me why we would want to squash the costs
> of addresses to 0 when optimizing for size?  What does effect does it have
> on the generated code?  I can't imagine how it would be possibly making
> any smaller code?

Roger, could you please comment on that?  I'm still somewhat puzzled...=