From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-450966-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 26253 invoked by alias); 8 May 2014 10:00:45 -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 26202 invoked by uid 55); 8 May 2014 10:00:42 -0000
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/61034] Optimizing takes too many passes
Date: Thu, 08 May 2014 10:00:00 -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: 4.10.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenther at suse dot de
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-61034-4-cEo9HoVxyt@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-61034-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-61034-4@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: 2014-05/txt/msg00658.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61034

--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Wed, 7 May 2014, glisse at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:

> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61034
> 
> --- Comment #11 from Marc Glisse <glisse at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> The committed patch doesn't seem to optimize as well as the hack. fre2 (- is
> the hack and + is the new trunk, unless I confused my directories):
> 
> -  _8 = _98;
> +  _8 = MEM[(const struct I &)b_9(D)].o;
> 
> -  _224 = _201;
> +  _224 = _18->count;
> 
> etc
> 
> I assume that's because call_may_clobber_ref_p_1 sometimes says that free
> clobbers its argument while the hack was assuming it never does. "free" is
> strange, somehow here we would want call_may_clobber_ref_p_1 to return false
> (we can't be reading after a free, so we must have taken another path, this
> free didn't run and didn't clobber anything) even when stmt_kills_ref_p_1 would
> return true, but that would confuse other parts of gcc.

Yeah, I know.  call_may_clobber_ref_p_1 has to guard against sinking
a load across it as well.

I'm working on improving value-numbering in other ways at the moment,
we can come back and special-case free and va_end builtins later
in SCCVN.