[Bug target/62631] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ivopts-lt-2.c FAILs

["amker at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631

--- Comment #32 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #30)
> On 2015-02-08, at 9:09 AM, amker at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> 
> > Ah, candidate 5 is considered cheaper according to the cost table.
> 
> Is this a problem with insn costs, or a problem in the estimation of the
> total cost
> for each candidate?
The total cost I think.  Cost in IVOPT is tricky and inaccurate since 1) it
needs to estimate cost of RTL on gimple IR; 2) The rtx expression cost is
computed together with address expression cost, which doesn't happen in other
part of GCC.  
I can try to make the case less vulnerable for now.  Should we consider this as
a missed optimization since GCC never did the optimization for the case before
(and still not for mentioned targets)?

Thanks,
bin
> 
> Dave
> --
> John David Anglin	dave.anglin@bell.net
>From gcc-bugs-return-476419-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Mon Feb 09 05:31:18 2015
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-476419-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 15224 invoked by alias); 9 Feb 2015 05:31:18 -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
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 15166 invoked by uid 48); 9 Feb 2015 05:31:14 -0000
From: "hp at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug ipa/61548] [5 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/tls/alias-1.c
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 05:31:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: ipa
X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: hp at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: REOPENED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-61548-4-MnY9GUXadS@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-61548-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-61548-4@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: 2015-02/txt/msg00752.txt.bz2
Content-length: 283

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?ida548

--- Comment #28 from Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #27)
> Does the following patch fix the problem?

Yes! Full regtest is underway but this particular FAIL is fixed.  Thanks.