From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-345161-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 14825 invoked by alias); 28 Jan 2011 11:04:48 -0000
Received: (qmail 14812 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Jan 2011 11:04:47 -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; Fri, 28 Jan 2011 11:04:43 +0000
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/47477] [4.6 regression] Sub-optimal mov at end of method
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, ra
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.6.0
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-47477-4-WwwWYuxy3p@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-47477-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-47477-4@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
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 11:31:00 -0000
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: 2011-01/txt/msg03100.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47477

--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-01-28 11:04:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Alternatively, this narrowing of > word mode operations could as well be done
> during tree optimizations.  I think the FE is the only place which performs
> them,
> as can be seen if you modify your testcase to do:
> void *
> add (void *a, void *b)
> {
>   return (void *)(__INTPTR_TYPE__) ((long long)(__INTPTR_TYPE__) a + ((long
> long)(__INTPTR_TYPE__) b & ~1L));
> }
> instead of
> void *
> add (void *a, void *b)
> {
>   long long tmp = (long long)(__INTPTR_TYPE__) a + ((long
> long)(__INTPTR_TYPE__) b & ~1L);
>   return (void *)(__INTPTR_TYPE__) tmp;
> }
> 
> But unfortunately we have nothing which performs this later on (gimple-fold?).

As it needs to combine several statements tree forwprop is our current
place to deal with this (as our "tree combiner").  Similar to the
new associate_plusminus code we should have combiners (not re-using fold)
to combine conversions.