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 75963385843B; Wed, 15 May 2024 03:57:28 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 75963385843B
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1715745448;
	bh=X0WE8V5LAtWGlu7/dyVzdYWLqhfQoZ5iixu2h+R0nqc=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=yc+dw5FZ4t5ESp3Pluh0vtxMqrGE6/O4El/OYOcf9n5LUe3OLu8uaxnouu4yMghko
	 BJR3ImIdCu9HMIkWJYsfNfkqdDKgInbTPsYZstkdw6gtsxqINHF4Cm1SNM455SVDlA
	 OJfQkA3voz3ocfF0UxNtGwkWjHKGgHUP8eKOZGgY=
From: "chenglulu at loongson dot cn" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/114978] [14/15 regression] 548.exchange2_r 14%-28%
 regressions on Loongarch64 after gcc 14 snapshot 20240317
Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 03:57:27 +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: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: chenglulu at loongson dot cn
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 14.2
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-114978-4-sT7pEfUAeZ@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-114978-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-114978-4@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=3D114978

--- Comment #18 from chenglulu <chenglulu at loongson dot cn> ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #17)
> Strangely PR114074 is a wrong-code (instead of missed-optimization) and
> reverting its fix seems improving performance for other targets...

This is very strange. I tried turning off reg_reg addressing on the basis of
r14-9540, and the performance was not much different from r14-9539. But
unfortunately I still don=E2=80=99t know why=