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 4B1723858CDA; Sun, 16 Jul 2023 17:15:10 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 4B1723858CDA
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1689527710;
	bh=PiMJyCql8SRfHiCABDHitsCWRGvOOZeC6nRtemBJRgs=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=o5IfyaoD9VLKpu8kiCh0uTZvBkCLeXVfkPkf79VM9rGalCm2e2iXdan7tHMwRiO6v
	 fkeIxTMHbqDYMBJwhLLMB2/1GAInlpg6ocXUq31t0a903s1UrSxxpKsLdBKY7ourug
	 RnJqMfdq62sog/P4u1v1CDr35tKnoPV83o1UQR9k=
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/68360] GCC bitfield processing code is very
 inefficient
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2023 17:15:10 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end
X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.2.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: see_also
Message-ID: <bug-68360-4-bU7fN02ZDj@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-68360-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-68360-4@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=3D68360

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           See Also|                            |https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
                   |                            |a/show_bug.cgi?id=3D107601

--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #7)
> Using an indexed load byte/store byte would be an advantage for foo, at
> least.

That would be more related to PR 107601 and less to do with this issue. Sin=
ce
for riscv SLOW_BYTE_ACCESS is set, then all bitfields accesses are widen. B=
ut
then you want to have them widen normally; otherwise you get other bad code
generation ...
Note riscv with zbs in the testcase in comment #7 will be one bseti:
        ld      a5,0(a0)
        bseti   a5,a5,42
        sd      a5,0(a0)

So it is less of an issue ...=