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 0EEE1385841E; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 07:06:19 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 0EEE1385841E
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1712819179;
	bh=CLyCORlqt7WU2+IhJijQ1G+X0kK/ONgXDg3EgTm49SY=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=DTAirLOpSu08snjIzLo9FHVF9xyvl3odJLwpV48N/Kd8aQgbEkterhtf6iQr3ZrB2
	 O19V4P9hob1yJvmxRZdhyUfNEIEIEDGY64Ie9unOXXGig/wPSomHRLpZwecHCiOAKX
	 nHH2DCjDyxzmjeBqfM6tJsDh21Gknt+kciSzgNXQ=
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/114688] repeat load argument of an inline
 function
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 07:06:18 +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: 13.2.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization, ra
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth 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 keywords everconfirmed
 cf_gcctarget bug_status
Message-ID: <bug-114688-4-jDlKg42nMY@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-114688-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-114688-4@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=3D114688

Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2024-04-11
           Keywords|                            |missed-optimization, ra
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1
             Target|                            |x86_64-*-*
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW

--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
char g;
int v;

static inline __attribute__((always_inline)) void foo(char p_17);
void func_1() { foo(g); }

static inline void foo(char c) {=20
    v =3D (char)(2 - c) & c;=20
}

shows that with -Os we get

func_1:
.LFB0:
        .cfi_startproc
        movb    g(%rip), %dl
        movb    $2, %al
        subl    %edx, %eax
        andl    %edx, %eax
        movsbl  %al, %eax
        movl    %eax, v(%rip)
        ret

I think we have duplicate bugs that show we're too happy replicating
memory operands to multiple instructions.  That might be a target cost
thing in the end.=