From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-439515-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 25495 invoked by alias); 7 Jan 2014 13:13:57 -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 25450 invoked by uid 55); 7 Jan 2014 13:13:53 -0000
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/59660] We fail to optimize common boolean checks pre-inlining
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 13:13:00 -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: unknown
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenther at suse dot de
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
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-59660-4-cKT5Ktxp0J@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-59660-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-59660-4@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: 2014-01/txt/msg00657.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59660

--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Tue, 7 Jan 2014, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote:

> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59660
> 
> --- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz> ---
> > I have noticed these, too (-Og is pessimzed by them).  The pattern is generated
> > by gimplifying.
> 
> I wondered why we can't simply update gimplifier to not produce them?
> (this is what I wanted to look into today, it seems pretty common pattern
> confusing inliner).
> For sure we should better also handle it either in cfg-cleanup or copyprop
> for cases that arrise as a result of other optimizations, but it seems it
> would speed things up if we did not wrap each predicate calls in its own three
> BBs.

Not all testcases can be handled at gimplification time IIRC.  Which
means "testcases welcome" first, so we can look at them individually.