From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-375791-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 8750 invoked by alias); 5 Dec 2011 08:19:43 -0000
Received: (qmail 8737 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Dec 2011 08:19:42 -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; Mon, 05 Dec 2011 08:19:29 +0000
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/50904] [4.7 regression] pessimization when -fno-protect-parens is enabled by -Ofast
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 08:19:00 -0000
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
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenther at suse dot de
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.7.0
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-50904-4-gW4SIW4m0Z@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-50904-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-50904-4@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: 2011-12/txt/msg00357.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50904

--- Comment #37 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> 2011-12-05 08:18:00 UTC ---
On Fri, 2 Dec 2011, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:

> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50904
> 
> --- Comment #34 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-12-02 17:06:57 UTC ---

[...]

> * * *
> 
> Back to the comment 0 issue: I still do not quite understand what the double
> evaluation (on tree level) of __builtin_pow in
>   D.1959_82 = ((D.2115_81));
>   D.1960_83 = __builtin_pow (D.1959_82, 2.0e+0);
>   D.1978_168 = __builtin_pow (D.2115_81, 2.0e+0);
> has to do with the -Ofast slow down. If I have understood it correctly, on tree
> level, there is no reason for it while the slow-down happens on RTL level.

Indeed I can find no other difference on the tree level (thus, no
invariant motion missed optimization that isn't present with both
-f[no-]protect-parens).

> That -fprotect-parens makes it faster is a mere coincidence. Is that a correct rough
> summary?

Yes.

Thus, I think if at the RTL level we see a missed invariant motion then
this is a RTL level bug (esp. if it only triggers with 
-fno-protect-parens).

Richard.