From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-376271-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 20171 invoked by alias); 8 Dec 2011 03:37:54 -0000
Received: (qmail 20163 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Dec 2011 03:37:53 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 08 Dec 2011 03:37:30 +0000
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/21617] [4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] CRC64 algorithm optimization problem on Intel 32-bit
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2011 03:37:00 -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-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia 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: 4.4.7
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-21617-4-AzGghxnCIW@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-21617-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-21617-4@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: 2011-12/txt/msg00837.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21617

--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-12-08 03:37:28 UTC ---
-O1:

<bb 5>:
  # __crc0_73 = PHI <__crc0_35(5), __crc0_54(7)>
  # __data_75 = PHI <__data_32(5), data_7(7)>
  D.1900_26 = __crc0_73 >> 56;
  D.1901_27 = (int) D.1900_26;
  D.1902_28 = MEM[base: __data_75, offset: 0B];
  D.1903_29 = (int) D.1902_28;
  D.1904_30 = D.1903_29 ^ D.1901_27;
  __tab_index_31 = D.1904_30 & 255;
  __data_32 = __data_75 + 1;
  D.1905_33 = crc_table[__tab_index_31];
  D.1906_34 = __crc0_73 << 8;
  __crc0_35 = D.1905_33 ^ D.1906_34;
  if (__data_32 != D.1928_55)
    goto <bb 5>;
  else
    goto <bb 6>;

-O2:
<bb 5>:
  # __crc0_1 = PHI <__crc0_35(5), __crc0_54(7)>
  # __data_67 = PHI <__data_32(5), data_7(7)>
  D.1900_26 = __crc0_1 >> 56;
  D.1901_27 = (int) D.1900_26;
  D.1902_28 = MEM[base: __data_67, offset: 0B];
  D.1903_29 = (int) D.1902_28;
  D.1904_30 = D.1903_29 ^ D.1901_27;
  __tab_index_31 = D.1904_30 & 255;
  __data_32 = __data_67 + 1;
  D.1905_33 = crc_table[__tab_index_31];
  D.1906_34 = __crc0_1 << 8;
  __crc0_35 = D.1905_33 ^ D.1906_34;
  if (__data_32 != D.1955_86)
    goto <bb 5>;
  else
    goto <bb 6>;

Aka nothing on the tree level causes the issue.