From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-412235-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 19248 invoked by alias); 15 Jan 2013 14:41:20 -0000
Received: (qmail 18956 invoked by uid 48); 15 Jan 2013 14:40:52 -0000
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/21485] [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] missed load PRE, PRE makes i?86 suck
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 14:41:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.6.4
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-21485-4-kUeKr1c2Qn@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-21485-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-21485-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2013-01/txt/msg01354.txt.bz2


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21485

--- Comment #54 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-01-15 14:40:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #48)
> I noticed PR 32120 is also involved.
> 
>   D.1716_7 = k_4 * 8;
>   D.1717_9 = array_8(D) + D.1716_7;
>   D.1718_10 = *D.1717_9;
>   k_11 = k_4 + 1;
>   D.1720_12 = k_11 * 8;
> 
> 
> The D.1720_12 should be converted to D.1716_7 + 8.

For this the straight-line strenght-reduction pass now does

  <bb 5>:
  _8 = i_6 * 8;
  _10 = array_9(D) + _8;
  _11 = *_10;
  i_12 = i_6 + 1;
  _13 = _8 + 8;
  _14 = array_9(D) + _13;
  _15 = *_14;

replacing i_12 * 8 with _8 + 8.  The association / CSE opportunity is
undetected (maybe it makes sense to schedule pass_strength_reduction
before the 2nd pass_reassoc?).