From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 6671D386C58F; Thu, 15 Feb 2024 18:36:34 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 6671D386C58F DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1708022194; bh=GkwvvVyLpdXiuyAOP3IMezn8J7EutO6uwiOAjAyRYQs=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=rCEDTVIu1vjSiAiCCBh+VyBAWQamW8zfDR03PVS5PIUmyKZPaCUlyveha6nBwOjRJ zaNbQ1kI1AzHTtIBkq5JZLAVl3oLDNEeEBsklpGIpGiNit3iLxuqVhTyQUxwHcD6L+ K9BQ5QP8PlsVuawrLp8c8plVM0bNomISE7xa772U= From: "aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug middle-end/94988] [11 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr64110.c scan-assembler vmovd[\\t ] Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 18:36:33 +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: 11.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: FIXED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 11.0 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D94988 --- Comment #10 from Alexandre Oliva --- Reasoning that the concurrent stores invoke undefined behavior would enable= us to assume that the stores don't alias, which invalidates the reasoning in comment 1. Alas, I don't think gimple preserves enough information for us = to tell that two statements used to be concurrent so as to derive optimization opportunities from them.=