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 DE6943858017; Tue, 25 Oct 2022 05:53:26 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org DE6943858017
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1666677206;
	bh=yuHtlLiVY5FVmpxm07kO3vsebBeOIvDOlmo89Dn56Bc=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=ZEi871ArpE5bmEwelMAy16kDBjKpnWRrh4BzN+BNWW+WYViTR9BMo8RiNzXhhoPsC
	 rueW/vqNZFdAe1GB2MSM1oRSS9NOgqmSDCbkbNVBDAmX6rw7QRO0b7/P979gSSHoJv
	 puzumDl/TZAkW2BEK5gJfhHb8OOJ1609oj3uJZ5c=
From: "crazylht at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/54346] combine permutations
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2022 05:53:24 +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: 4.8.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: crazylht at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
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: <bug-54346-4-Xpnl2sBhfh@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-54346-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-54346-4@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=3D54346

--- Comment #9 from Hongtao.liu <crazylht at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #7)
> (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #6)
> > The log says that this breaks tree-ssa/forwprop-19.c, but I don't see a=
ny
> > xfail or anything. Does it only fail because gimple-simplify leaves some
> > dead code around, so you could update the test to scan the next DCE pass
> > dump instead of forwprop1? Or are we missing a transformation that just
> > detects a VEC_PERM_EXPR with an identity permutation?
>=20
> Uoops, I didn't notice this, will add an incremental patch to handle the
> indentical index (forwporp-19.c) scenario=EF=BC=8C sorry.

It's fixed.=