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 E6552385BF92; Wed,  1 Apr 2020 18:11:00 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org E6552385BF92
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
 s=default; t=1585764660;
 bh=T6w2WeXPF4pBDxDrxRQMabBmIiPFoCSAvetx9t1KBBM=;
 h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
 b=wqLkrAmbjAYBpsRp3hJnfS6uaYAvk73JP4ajHLlARkH3cqweCIcrRTj5fvL54DoGg
 /ym4CBI7zWiDTEqRzR145/89xljOqL2KNNaOdGqnJn/2CpzCbMXVOt/+aVJj5CnCU8
 NrU9VL4pC/2VwfZYtP0CUxBccWO8rWB5vFbDBw80=
From: "segher at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/91804] [10 regression] r265398 breaks
 gcc.target/powerpc/vec-rlmi-rlnm.c
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2020 18:11:00 +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: 10.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: segher at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: segher at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 10.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_status cc
Message-ID: <bug-91804-4-jscMwL4R5V@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-91804-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-91804-4@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
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2020 18:11:01 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D91804

Segher Boessenkool <segher at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |NEW
                 CC|                            |bergner at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool <segher at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
This extra move is created by IRA:

Examining insn 22, def for 133
  all ok and transp
      Creating newreg=3D134 from oldreg=3D133
rescanning insn with uid =3D 22.
scanning new insn with uid =3D 25.
    New r134: setting preferred ALTIVEC_REGS, alternative VSX_REGS

Why?!

It was
(insn 22 11 20 2 (set (reg:V16QI 133)
        (vec_duplicate:V16QI (const_int 8 [0x8]))) "vec-rlmi-rlnm.c":45:10 =
1204
{xxspltib_v16qi}
     (nil))

and it is used only in

(insn 23 19 9 2 (set (reg:V2DI 127)
        (unspec:V2DI [
                (reg:V16QI 133)
            ] UNSPEC_VSX_SIGN_EXTEND)) "vec-rlmi-rlnm.c":45:10 1533
{vsx_sign_extend_qi_v2di}
     (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:V16QI 133)
        (expr_list:REG_EQUAL (const_vector:V2DI [
                    (const_int 8 [0x8]) repeated x2
                ])
            (nil))))

so copying it to another reg cannot help anything here?

Peter, can you take a look?=