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 1F928385E003; Tue, 24 Mar 2020 14:05:49 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 1F928385E003
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
 s=default; t=1585058749;
 bh=kzSgUbUnKGFr2n8hov+oqtwzScb1q77FsIZAomsgSiU=;
 h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
 b=wUNDeF1+yonZU+CTBk2DDjJI6EU/dW+6OM0VmyhBgEkveRlFt9tLvbTOod/fwx3Tw
 Igslm+SGBMJGmojcb3yo2u2UoA+Ql2yfj/1jMXlU3JOGc5XOnGXiPCOVXiZvfZLGOs
 4CeY+fIsZtO15Bi5UveivRnia9+4/53W2G+F7hZs=
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/94298] x86 duplicates loads
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2020 14:05:48 +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, ra
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenther at suse dot de
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
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-94298-4-NwBqR9QoVN@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-94298-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-94298-4@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: Tue, 24 Mar 2020 14:05:49 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D94298

--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Tue, 24 Mar 2020, ubizjak at gmail dot com wrote:

> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D94298
>=20
> --- Comment #3 from Uro=C5=A1 Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> ---
> (In reply to rguenther@suse.de from comment #2)
>=20
> > So I wonder whether the bug is that there is a memory alternative
> > in the first place?
>=20
> Memory alternative should be OK, we do have insns that access memory. Per=
haps
> vec_interleave_high/vec_interleave_low shouldn't be used by middel end in=
 this
> particular case?

It's going through the generic vec_perm_const expander.=