From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12893 invoked by alias); 3 Feb 2013 01:05:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 12616 invoked by uid 48); 3 Feb 2013 01:05:35 -0000 From: "steven at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/56151] [4.8 Regression] Performance degradation after r194054 on x86 Atom. Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2013 01:05:00 -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: steven 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: 4.8.0 X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: CC Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2013-02/txt/msg00166.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56151 Steven Bosscher changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |steven at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4 from Steven Bosscher 2013-02-03 01:05:34 UTC --- 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)) {