public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug tree-optimization/115483] New: Missed optimization for loop invariant code
@ 2024-06-14 0:49 zhiwuyazhe154 at gmail dot com
2024-06-14 1:18 ` [Bug tree-optimization/115483] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-06-14 5:48 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
0 siblings, 2 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: zhiwuyazhe154 at gmail dot com @ 2024-06-14 0:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115483
Bug ID: 115483
Summary: Missed optimization for loop invariant code
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zhiwuyazhe154 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Godbolt example: https://godbolt.org/z/s75d4GfTT
code example:
unsigned m,n;
unsigned func(unsigned a, unsigned b,
unsigned c, unsigned d)
{
for(unsigned i=0; i<100; i++)
{
m += 1024;
b += c/n + (c + d) + m;
m += m;
}
return b;
}
In this case, c/n + (c + d) is loop invariant code.
It seems that reassociate breaks the optimization of licm.
There are a few other issues that mention the shortcomings of reassociate, but
there doesn't seem to be an issue that shows its negative impact.
GCC -O3:
func(unsigned int, unsigned int, unsigned int, unsigned int):
mov eax, edx
mov r9d, edx
xor edx, edx
mov r8d, esi
div DWORD PTR n[rip]
mov esi, DWORD PTR m[rip]
mov edi, 100
.L2:
add esi, 1024
lea edx, [rsi+rcx]
add esi, esi
add edx, r9d
add edx, eax
add r8d, edx
sub edi, 1
jne .L2
mov DWORD PTR m[rip], esi
mov eax, r8d
ret
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/115483] Missed optimization for loop invariant code
2024-06-14 0:49 [Bug tree-optimization/115483] New: Missed optimization for loop invariant code zhiwuyazhe154 at gmail dot com
@ 2024-06-14 1:18 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-06-14 5:48 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-06-14 1:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115483
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
See Also| |https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
| |a/show_bug.cgi?id=114701
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
>There are a few other issues that mention the shortcomings of reassociate, but there doesn't seem to be an issue that shows its negative impact.
Actually there are a few.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/115483] Missed optimization for loop invariant code
2024-06-14 0:49 [Bug tree-optimization/115483] New: Missed optimization for loop invariant code zhiwuyazhe154 at gmail dot com
2024-06-14 1:18 ` [Bug tree-optimization/115483] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-06-14 5:48 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-06-14 5:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115483
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
it's again the interaction of store motion, re-assoc and then invariant motion.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-06-14 5:48 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2024-06-14 0:49 [Bug tree-optimization/115483] New: Missed optimization for loop invariant code zhiwuyazhe154 at gmail dot com
2024-06-14 1:18 ` [Bug tree-optimization/115483] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-06-14 5:48 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).