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 9F25F3858CDB; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 08:40:46 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 9F25F3858CDB
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1712738446;
	bh=tYqgx53fVu4Fmvai3UtmFb9iw2LxfiPz2VzlFMjfswk=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=WmysyinfZ6m/cynDkq+yKhDk1St71j6yIvxA0J6AM3yxWBWfZTjpa1BqxfIIpmgAX
	 nF9cHCkmLEvwPueb6p6higVcQIJ7aUyTcIq0kYe90n32N43w2u6h6I1Rq9Cy9yAH1o
	 c6XcwSCuH1KqxdxdPtqZg7HFK3ClUvVTyJ5VavmI=
From: "ubizjak at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/114591] [12/13/14 Regression] register allocators
 introduce an extra load operation since gcc-12
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 08:40:43 +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: 13.2.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization, ra
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ubizjak at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 12.4
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-114591-4-gZNhRwmLHA@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-114591-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-114591-4@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=3D114591

--- Comment #7 from Uro=C5=A1 Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #5)
> > My experience is memory cost for the operand with rm or separate r, m is
> > different which impacts RA decision.
> >=20
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-May/595573.html
>=20
> Change operands[1] alternative 2 from m -> rm, then RA makes perfect
> decision.

Oh, you are also the author of the above patch ;)

Can you please take the issue from here and perhaps review other x86 patter=
ns
for unoptimal constraints? I was always under impression that rm and separa=
te
"r,m" are treated in the same way...=