From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-436592-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 15770 invoked by alias); 4 Dec 2013 01:52:54 -0000
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
Received: (qmail 15726 invoked by uid 48); 4 Dec 2013 01:52:51 -0000
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/59371] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Performance regression in GCC 4.8 and later versions.
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2013 01:52:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.8.3
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-59371-4-uSsPGfG07S@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-59371-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-59371-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2013-12/txt/msg00247.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59371

--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Maciej W. Rozycki from comment #5)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> > Well that corrects how i++ is done.
> 
> Old MIPS assembly code produced was AFAICT correct.  The loop termination
> condition was expressed as:

Correctly representative in the gimple IR rather than in the final assembly.