From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 688563857359; Sat,  7 Oct 2023 19:47:33 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 688563857359
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1696708053;
	bh=DxG9lLvuFVecTjmGGfuMVufBfr/57sPwvYD2MBZ2qbQ=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=jj7cfzyQQWZV0rwqsKgxUD7bgjbvHhf7LrTf9UDWGANr/sDhmPEWuB71uhtqoFV2Z
	 lrYCRslJ43utOMXudwfeC8QbMxarJVnxU2E/RJaS64OBApaUZyMDSFvxfnFSS3eb+g
	 FZ7pdeLVOh9n+xzIqABeGAiYbhevlb8mC/vS0RxU=
From: "law at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/64215] -Os misses an opportunity to merge two ret
 instructions
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2023 19:47:31 +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: 4.8.2
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: law at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
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: cc
Message-ID: <bug-64215-4-LxjOXPLVZo@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-64215-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-64215-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D64215

Jeffrey A. Law <law at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |law at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law <law at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Andrew, the reason the patch you referenced doesn't help this case is becau=
se
we don't have an unconditional jump to a return only block.

To optimize this case we'd have to detect that we have a return only block =
that
is immediately preceded by another return block after bbro.

ie:

(note 48 23 59 6 [bb 6] NOTE_INSN_BASIC_BLOCK)
(insn 59 48 49 6 (use (reg/i:SI 10 a0)) -1
     (nil))
(jump_insn 49 59 37 6 (simple_return) 346 {simple_return}
     (nil)
 -> simple_return)
;; lr  out       1 [ra] 2 [sp] 10 [a0]
;; live  out     1 [ra] 2 [sp] 10 [a0]

;;  succ:       EXIT [always]  count:52738306 (estimated locally, freq 0.45=
91)

;; basic block 7, loop depth 0, count 6317494 (estimated locally, freq 0.05=
50),
maybe hot
;;  prev block 6, next block 1, flags: (REACHABLE, RTL)
;;  pred:       2 [5.5% (guessed)]  count:6317494 (estimated locally, freq
0.0550) (CAN_FALLTHRU)
;; bb 7 artificial_defs: { }
;; bb 7 artificial_uses: { u-1(2){ }}
;; lr  in        1 [ra] 2 [sp] 10 [a0]
;; lr  use       2 [sp] 10 [a0]
;; lr  def
;; live  in      1 [ra] 2 [sp] 10 [a0]
;; live  gen
;; live  kill

(code_label 37 49 36 7 4 (nil) [1 uses])
(note 36 37 60 7 [bb 7] NOTE_INSN_BASIC_BLOCK)
(insn 60 36 51 7 (use (reg/i:SI 10 a0)) -1
     (nil))
(jump_insn 51 60 41 7 (simple_return) 346 {simple_return}
     (nil)
 -> simple_return)=