public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/94873] [8/9/10/11 Regression] wrong code with -O -fno-merge-constants -fno-split-wide-types -fno-tree-fre
Date: Tue, 05 May 2020 07:34:55 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-94873-4-nmV4ouaLOt@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-94873-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94873

--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Ok, so what we do about this bug then if it ought to be combine.c that needs
changing?  For REG_EQUAL notes in combine_instructions check for the
auto-incdec side-effects in the pattern (I'd hope we don't have them in
REG_EQUAL notes content) and if there are any, punt?  At least for backporting
that seems like the right solution, and given that it seems try_combine also
punts on these if we remove or add any in the patterns, it seems in line with
what the rest of combiner does.  Or, shall it e.g. queue the side-effects in
some new argument to try_combine and if the combination would succeed, add the
side-effect as yet another instruction (if it can match and is cheaper than
what we have previously)?

  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-05-05  7:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-04-30 10:44 [Bug rtl-optimization/94873] New: [8/9/10 " zsojka at seznam dot cz
2020-04-30 12:36 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/94873] " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-04-30 12:42 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-04-30 12:46 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-04-30 15:00 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-05-01 15:11 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/94873] [8/9/10/11 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-05-01 15:21 ` law at redhat dot com
2020-05-01 17:17 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-05-01 18:31 ` segher at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-05-01 18:52 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-05-04 19:09 ` segher at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-05-04 19:26 ` segher at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-05-04 19:58 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-05-04 20:47 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-05-04 22:12 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-05-04 23:16 ` segher at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-05-05  7:24 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-05-05  7:34 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2020-05-05  8:04 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-05-05 10:22 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-05-05 15:02 ` segher at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-05-06  7:34 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-05-06 11:50 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/94873] [8/9/10 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-05-07 13:28 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-05-07 13:33 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/94873] [8/9 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-09-16 19:21 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-09-17 17:49 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-94873-4-nmV4ouaLOt@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).