From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-407457-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 25742 invoked by alias); 22 Nov 2012 09:51:15 -0000
Received: (qmail 25685 invoked by uid 48); 22 Nov 2012 09:50:58 -0000
From: "hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/38785] [4.5/4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] huge performance regression on EEMBC bitmnp01
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 09:51:00 -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, patch
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: REOPENED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.8.0
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: CC
Message-ID: <bug-38785-4-7D2VFcAPy6@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-38785-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-38785-4@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: 2012-11/txt/msg02119.txt.bz2


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38785

Jan Hubicka <hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |vmakarov at redhat dot com

--- Comment #37 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-11-22 09:50:52 UTC ---
Yes, agreed. It is overall problem of SSA form to assume that reg-reg copies in
PHIs will be optimized away by smart regalloc.  Moreover we assume the same for
constants.

This case is hard to fix later since the values are path sensitive...
Vladimir, I guess there is not much to do on regalloc side, right?

Why the problem do not reproduce on simplified testcase:
void
f (int i, long *a, long *b)
{
  int sum = 0;
  b[i] = 0;
#define PART(I) if (t()) sum++;
  PART (1);
  PART (2);
  PART (3);
  PART (4);
  PART (5);
  PART (6);
  tt (sum);
}
here we somehow do not consider the partial redundancies on sum...