From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-478129-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 27802 invoked by alias); 22 Feb 2015 22:30:53 -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 27728 invoked by uid 48); 22 Feb 2015 22:30:47 -0000
From: "olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.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 23:49:00 -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: <bug-65153-4-hdio6G2xum@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-65153-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-65153-4@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/msg02461.txt.bz2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65153

--- Comment #9 from Oleg Endo <olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #8)
> 
> 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.

The set of peepholes can be found in PR 61142, attachment 34839.
CSiBE numbers with that patch:

sum:  3371887 -> 3367967    -3920 / -0.116255 %
avg: -217.777778 / -0.167780 %
max: replaypc-0.4.0.preproc   57212 -> 57188          -24 / -0.041949 %
min: mpeg2dec-0.3.1           54348 -> 53984         -364 / -0.669758 %

and with the patch, but without the problematic peephole of this PR:

sum:  3371887 -> 3367983    -3904 / -0.115781 %
avg: -216.888889 / -0.167686 %
max: replaypc-0.4.0.preproc   57212 -> 57188          -24 / -0.041949 %
min: mpeg2dec-0.3.1           54348 -> 53984         -364 / -0.669758 %

It seems that the other set of peepholes covers most of the cases of the
complex peephole.