From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-372173-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 6603 invoked by alias); 27 Oct 2011 20:29:25 -0000
Received: (qmail 6570 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Oct 2011 20:29:21 -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, 27 Oct 2011 20:29:09 +0000
From: "izamyatin at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/50164] [IRA, 4.7 Regression] Performance degradation due to increased memory instructions count
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 20:29:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: izamyatin at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: REOPENED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.7.0
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: CC
Message-ID: <bug-50164-4-zqO6BJXLQf@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-50164-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-50164-4@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: 2011-10/txt/msg02917.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50164

Igor Zamyatin <izamyatin at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |izamyatin at gmail dot com

--- Comment #10 from Igor Zamyatin <izamyatin at gmail dot com> 2011-10-27 20:28:47 UTC ---
I see that currently code for reproducer looks good. Surprisingly it happened
after revision 179275 (fix for PR 43864) which seems to be irrelevant here. And
indeed I have another test that shows a problem apparently in IRA or somewhere
near it. 
This new problem actually is not about regression so I suggest to close this
tracker and I will open another one once I prepare good test case.