From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5579 invoked by alias); 22 Feb 2015 14:44:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 5523 invoked by uid 48); 22 Feb 2015 14:44:47 -0000 From: "olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/65153] [SH][4.9 Regression] "insn does not satisfy its constraints" when compiling libmcrypt Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 14:48:00 -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: 4.9.2 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 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: In-Reply-To: References: 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/msg02429.txt.bz2 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65153 --- Comment #8 from Oleg Endo --- It seems that the problematic peephole is trying to wallpaper some unlucky register allocation/reload choices like: before peephole: mov.w .L26,r1 add r8,r1 mov r1,r8 mov #0,r1 mov.l r1,@(32,r8) after peephole: mov.w .L26,r1 add r8,r1 mov #0,r8 mov.l r8,@(32,r1) I've tried to disable the peephole on trunk and compared CSiBE results. It seems the peephole doesn't hit very often: sum: 3371887 -> 3371943 +56 / +0.001661 % So we could probably remove the complex peephole without a big loss. I have a set of similar but simpler peepholes with a higher hit rate. Maybe we can replace the complex peephole with some simpler ones.