* [Bug target/45670] [4.6 Regression] Less efficient x86 addressing mode selection on 4.6, causes -Os size regression from 4.5
[not found] <bug-45670-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2010-09-29 18:19 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-11-05 10:03 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2010-09-29 18:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45670
Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority|P3 |P2
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [Bug target/45670] [4.6 Regression] Less efficient x86 addressing mode selection on 4.6, causes -Os size regression from 4.5
[not found] <bug-45670-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2010-09-29 18:19 ` [Bug target/45670] [4.6 Regression] Less efficient x86 addressing mode selection on 4.6, causes -Os size regression from 4.5 rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2010-11-05 10:03 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-11-05 10:49 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2010-11-05 10:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45670
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-11-05 10:03:15 UTC ---
Well, it is actually very much related to that reversion. While it didn't
regress in between 161907 and 162617, it regressed from the MEM_REF merge till
161906 and from 162618 onwards.
The problem is that due to the MEM load combiner isn't able to fix this up, so
if we don't get it right during expansion, we are out of luck. Looking at it
now...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [Bug target/45670] [4.6 Regression] Less efficient x86 addressing mode selection on 4.6, causes -Os size regression from 4.5
[not found] <bug-45670-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2010-09-29 18:19 ` [Bug target/45670] [4.6 Regression] Less efficient x86 addressing mode selection on 4.6, causes -Os size regression from 4.5 rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-11-05 10:03 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2010-11-05 10:49 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-11-05 11:17 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2010-11-05 10:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45670
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-11-05 10:48:39 UTC ---
Created attachment 22291
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22291
gcc46-pr45670.patch
Untested fix.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [Bug target/45670] [4.6 Regression] Less efficient x86 addressing mode selection on 4.6, causes -Os size regression from 4.5
[not found] <bug-45670-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2010-11-05 10:49 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2010-11-05 11:17 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-11-05 19:01 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-11-05 19:11 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
5 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2010-11-05 11:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45670
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-11-05 11:17:11 UTC ---
> Well, it is actually very much related to that reversion. While it didn't
> regress in between 161907 and 162617, it regressed from the MEM_REF merge till
> 161906 and from 162618 onwards.
Yes, that isn't different from what I said, it had been caused by something
else.
> The problem is that due to the MEM load combiner isn't able to fix this up, so
> if we don't get it right during expansion, we are out of luck. Looking at it
> now...
Thanks!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [Bug target/45670] [4.6 Regression] Less efficient x86 addressing mode selection on 4.6, causes -Os size regression from 4.5
[not found] <bug-45670-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2010-11-05 11:17 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2010-11-05 19:01 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-11-05 19:11 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
5 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2010-11-05 19:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45670
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-11-05 19:00:32 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Nov 5 19:00:27 2010
New Revision: 166371
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166371
Log:
PR target/45670
* expr.c (expand_expr_real_1) <case MEM_REF>: Use EXPAND_SUM
instead of EXPAND_NORMAL for base expansion.
* gcc.target/i386/pr45670.c: New test.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr45670.c
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/expr.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [Bug target/45670] [4.6 Regression] Less efficient x86 addressing mode selection on 4.6, causes -Os size regression from 4.5
[not found] <bug-45670-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2010-11-05 19:01 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2010-11-05 19:11 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
5 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2010-11-05 19:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45670
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-11-05 19:10:57 UTC ---
Fixed.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread