From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-474894-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 10553 invoked by alias); 26 Jan 2015 14:51:21 -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 9166 invoked by uid 55); 26 Jan 2015 14:51:01 -0000
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/62173] [5.0 regression] 64bit Arch can't ivopt while 32bit Arch can
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 14:51:00 -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: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenther at suse dot de
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-62173-4-OLnJ476dEG@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-62173-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-62173-4@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: 2015-01/txt/msg02888.txt.bz2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62173

--- Comment #21 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, ramana at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:

> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62173
> 
> --- Comment #19 from Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #18)
> > It's probably not correct to simply transfer range info from *idx to
> > iv->base.
> > Instead SCEV analysis needs to track the range of CHREC_LEFT when it analyzes
> > the SSA use-def chain.  That's of course a much bigger change :/
> > 
> > The patch may still help in some cases - I suppose the original testcase is
> > reduced from sth else?
> 
> Not sure if this is related to comment #c2 where the reference is to a 15%
> regression in bzip2 compress at O3. Sebastian could probably confirm.
> 
> I don't think we can ignore the regression though, can we ?

We should try not to.