From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 26ED53858D39; Fri, 26 Jan 2024 15:05:15 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 26ED53858D39 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1706281515; bh=+n/8lniZfdxKbuGZQvkqmUHTYGUtkLO+haqZTHv8Qj4=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=AAM76BjoKGjrEosj3jcmq1iGMdYcoLISSLco//SkfDsxCtf8fQPeFOpaieEqijt2T AUejF2T2WmIJ4CNRyBeDQ7xNQMSsr3IN1wJ4MvHgpxyiThVgDrDEl20wYRYY8yKC1q XXSQ2ZsCV2du7/v/vsfXakrBiXalq/3Yznddi1w4= From: "acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/113618] [14 Regression] AArch64: memmove idiom regression Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2024 15:05:13 +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: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: acoplan 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: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cf_reconfirmed_on everconfirmed bug_status cc 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=3D113618 Alex Coplan changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Last reconfirmed| |2024-01-26 Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW CC| |acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1 from Alex Coplan --- Confirmed. (In reply to Wilco from comment #0) > A possible fix would be to avoid emitting LDP/STP in memcpy/memmove/memset > expansions. Yeah, so I had posted https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-November/636855.html for that but held off from committing it at the time as IMO there wasn't enough evid= ence to show that this helps in general (and the pass could in theory miss opportunities which would lead to regressions).=20 But perhaps this is a good argument for going ahead with that change (of co= urse it will need rebasing).=