From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23791 invoked by alias); 27 May 2013 11:37:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 23732 invoked by uid 48); 27 May 2013 11:37:27 -0000 From: "manu at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c/48088] -Werror=frame-larger-than=100 does not work as expected Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 11:37:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: c X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.6.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: manu 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: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2013-05/txt/msg01886.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D48088 --- Comment #6 from Manuel L=C3=B3pez-Ib=C3=A1=C3=B1ez --- (In reply to Sergei Trofimovich from comment #5) > Does it make sense to implement desired behaviour? Probably not. We also don't accept two different values for -Wframe-larger-than. But it would make sense to diagnose -Werror=3Dframe-larger-than=3D500 and only accept -Werror=3Dframe-larger-th= an and also fix the option printing issues. >>From gcc-bugs-return-423214-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Mon May 27 11:45:29 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 31305 invoked by alias); 27 May 2013 11:45:29 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 31047 invoked by uid 48); 27 May 2013 11:45:24 -0000 From: "ysrumyan at gmail dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/57430] New: Redundant move instruction is produced after function inlining Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 11:45:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: new X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: ysrumyan at gmail dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_id short_desc product version bug_status bug_severity priority component assigned_to reporter Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2013-05/txt/msg01887.txt.bz2 Content-length: 1183 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57430 Bug ID: 57430 Summary: Redundant move instruction is produced after function inlining Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: tree-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: ysrumyan at gmail dot com This is based on performance analysis of eembc2.0 suite on Atom processor in comparison with clang compiler. I prepared a simple reproducer that exhibits the issue. Hottest loop (from function "remove") consists of 7 instructions if inlining was applied: .L48: movl %edx, %ebp <<-- it is redundant!! movl %ecx, %edx .L39: cmpl %edx, %eax je .L24 movl 16(%edx), %ecx testl %ecx, %ecx jne .L48 but without inlining it consists of 6 instructions: .L5: cmpl %eax, %ecx je .L4 movl %eax, %edx .L7: movl 16(%edx), %eax testl %eax, %eax jne .L5 In result we can see performance drop on 4% (Atom 32-bit mode). The reproducer will be attached.