From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id D0ACC3858D35; Thu,  3 Aug 2023 05:12:56 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org D0ACC3858D35
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1691039576;
	bh=38wNqGaLYVensKNdjNk546OL1iI8mThTnzceNOwAVvc=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=A7QtTOXV7Ef/sN8rzMOEiZf28+MsskofgVI8S/i26nt3bsBzXH7Q8G8nZXiqhs7G8
	 ZgZVdw1QxHp+wvNMECVFE69gsa15N6CxFEcsHCcM85mcf97Zqct576oLjKHu0nVBwm
	 QfrOhqQusBXqSsb4TOYJEDqPegP42N+GbtoMwk9I=
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/51049] A regression caused by "Improve
 handling of conditional-branches on targets with high branch costs"
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2023 05:12:55 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.7.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-51049-4-jukPjhoTwz@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-51049-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-51049-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
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
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D51049

--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
So at -O1 we get what we expect:
```
  _1 =3D *i_4(D);
  _7 =3D j_5(D) !=3D 2;
  _8 =3D _1 !=3D 0;
  _9 =3D _7 & _8;
  if (_9 !=3D 0)
    goto <bb 3>; [43.56%]
  else
    goto <bb 4>; [56.44%]

  <bb 3> [local count: 467721933]:
  _6 =3D (int) _1;

  <bb 4> [local count: 1073741824]:
  # _2 =3D PHI <_6(3), j_5(D)(2)>
```
But at -O2 we get:
```
  if (_1 !=3D 0)
    goto <bb 3>; [66.00%]
  else
    goto <bb 5>; [34.00%]

  <bb 3> [local count: 708669599]:
  if (j_5(D) !=3D 2)
    goto <bb 4>; [66.00%]
  else
    goto <bb 5>; [34.00%]

  <bb 4> [local count: 467721933]:
  _6 =3D (int) _1;

  <bb 5> [local count: 1073741824]:
  # _2 =3D PHI <_6(4), j_5(D)(3), j_5(D)(2)>
```

Because VRP comes along and replaces j_5(D) with 2 along the edge `3->5` and
ifcombine does not do handle that as the phi entries are different (but may=
be
can be proved as the same).=