From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-414655-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 3488 invoked by alias); 8 Feb 2013 15:29:52 -0000
Received: (qmail 2904 invoked by uid 48); 8 Feb 2013 15:29:16 -0000
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/56151] [4.8 Regression] Performance degradation after r194054 on x86 Atom.
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 15:29:00 -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: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.8.0
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-56151-4-DJFLvnEuhQ@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-56151-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-56151-4@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: 2013-02/txt/msg00820.txt.bz2


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56151

--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-02-08 15:29:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Patch to help explain the problem:
> 
> Index: optabs.c
> ===================================================================
> --- optabs.c    (revision 195687)
> +++ optabs.c    (working copy)
> @@ -1452,8 +1452,13 @@ expand_binop_directly (enum machine_mode
>      {
>        /* If PAT is composed of more than one insn, try to add an appropriate
>          REG_EQUAL note to it.  If we can't because TEMP conflicts with an
> -        operand, call expand_binop again, this time without a target.  */
> +        operand, call expand_binop again, this time without a target.
> +
> +        However, if target is a MEM, just accept the lossage of not having
> +        a REG_EQUAL note.  This avoids splitting up insns of the form
> +        "MEM=MEM op X", a form we may not be able to reconstruct later.  */
>        if (INSN_P (pat) && NEXT_INSN (pat) != NULL_RTX
> +         && ! (target && MEM_P (target))
>           && ! add_equal_note (pat, ops[0].value, optab_to_code (binoptab),
>                                ops[1].value, ops[2].value))
>         {

Shouldn't the && ! (target && MEM_P (target))
come after add_equal_note call, not before it?  I.e. shouldn't we try to add
the note if possible?