From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-394053-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 5296 invoked by alias); 12 Jun 2012 12:21:27 -0000
Received: (qmail 5278 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Jun 2012 12:21:22 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.3 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,TW_ZJ
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; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:21:09 +0000
From: "ubizjak at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/53639] x86_64: redundant 64-bit operations on 32-bit integers
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:21:00 -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: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ubizjak 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-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-53639-4-ZdcE3Q4eNM@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-53639-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-53639-4@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: 2012-06/txt/msg00680.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53639

--- Comment #3 from Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> 2012-06-12 12:21:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)

> Unfortunately that patch regressed pr49095.c testcase.  So, either we limit the
> splitter to the paradoxical subreg that is created by the combiner when seeing
> SImode and followed by zero_extend to DImode of the result (done in this
> patch), or we'd need to add new peepholes for the a = mem; a &= const; mem = a;
> if (a)
> cases where a &= const has been transformed into andsi_1_zext.  Uros, any
> preference?

The splitter, since the scheduler can break interesting sequence by inserting
unrelated instructions.