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 E4DEA3858D37; Thu, 28 Dec 2023 02:58:53 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org E4DEA3858D37
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1703732333;
	bh=XoscyUlA6cXImalSfh3bQxkN2GBn6uo0LGum6Xp8yb8=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=Rny574m/bMibFM0yP4iTXns4T543l3GLWZZrE11uvHMQIpTmjKgwaEz/B7llhzLQy
	 MYs2lEz4gKzSW8kJg4RizfN7165/Jv/Iw2sT0IkHaHRMNpCMIKIAvcBee6ro4zdNWf
	 W+QiJp9UNNbmZf7N8tCqAtTvWrPqb2RQMygaQHSo=
From: "lh_mouse at 126 dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/81456] [11/12/13/14 Regression] x86-64 optimizer makes
 wrong decision when optimizing for size
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2023 02:58:51 +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: 8.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: lh_mouse at 126 dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 11.5
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc
Message-ID: <bug-81456-4-W3PXHjvaYN@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-81456-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-81456-4@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=3D81456

LIU Hao <lh_mouse at 126 dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |lh_mouse at 126 dot com

--- Comment #12 from LIU Hao <lh_mouse at 126 dot com> ---
Is this the same issue?

https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/sTs3E9EP1
```
struct stack
  {
    void** base;
    unsigned int top, cap;
  };

struct context
  {
    void* data;
    stack* st;
  };

int
clear_stack(context& ctx)
  {
    ctx.st->top =3D 0;
    return 0;
  }
```

GCC reuses RAX for `ctx.st` and the return value, so an extra XOR is genera=
ted:
```
clear_stack(context&):
 mov    rax,QWORD PTR [rdi+0x8]
 xor    edx,edx                  <-- this would be unnecessary if
                                     `xor eax, eax` was lifted here
 mov    DWORD PTR [rax+0x8],edx
 xor    eax,eax
 ret
```

as in
```
clear_stack_2(context&):
 mov    rcx,QWORD PTR [rdi+0x8]    # 48 8b 4f 08
 xor    eax,eax                    # 31 c0
 mov    DWORD PTR [rcx+0x8],eax    # 89 41 08
 ret                               # c3
```=