From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-411916-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 25788 invoked by alias); 11 Jan 2013 15:01:51 -0000
Received: (qmail 25663 invoked by uid 48); 11 Jan 2013 15:01:19 -0000
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/55941] [4.8 Regression] Strange copy of double (in struct) to stack
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 15:01:00 -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: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: CC
Message-ID: <bug-55941-4-r8adkJNUj1@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-55941-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-55941-4@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: 2013-01/txt/msg01035.txt.bz2


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55941

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |rth at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-01-11 15:01:18 UTC ---
I'd hope that the subreg pass could be able to figure out something out of:
(insn 4 3 5 2 (set (reg:TI 63 [ x ])
        (const_int 0 [0])) pr55941.c:2 85 {*movti_internal_rex64}
     (nil))
(insn 5 4 6 2 (set (subreg:DF (reg:TI 63 [ x ]) 0)
        (reg:DF 64 [ x ])) pr55941.c:2 131 {*movdf_internal_rex64}
     (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:DF 64 [ x ])
        (nil)))
(insn 6 5 8 2 (set (subreg:DF (reg:TI 63 [ x ]) 8)
        (reg:DF 22 xmm1 [ x+8 ])) pr55941.c:2 131 {*movdf_internal_rex64}
     (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:DF 22 xmm1 [ x+8 ])
        (nil)))
(insn 8 6 9 2 (set (reg:DF 67 [ D.1730 ])
        (reg:DF 23 xmm2 [ y ])) pr55941.c:2 131 {*movdf_internal_rex64}
     (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:DF 23 xmm2 [ y ])
        (nil)))
(note 9 8 12 2 NOTE_INSN_FUNCTION_BEG)
(insn 12 9 17 2 (set (reg:DF 67 [ D.1730 ])
        (plus:DF (reg:DF 67 [ D.1730 ])
            (subreg:DF (reg:TI 63 [ x ]) 0))) pr55941.c:2 785
{*fop_df_comm_sse}
     (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:TI 63 [ x ])
        (nil)))
(all accesses to pseudo 63 in the listed insns), but it only drops the insn 6,
but doesn't figure out the only user uses the low part and thus propagate the
setter.  Or perhaps should forwprop propagate something like that?