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 5387D3851C1F; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 10:42:10 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 5387D3851C1F
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
 s=default; t=1592822530;
 bh=hH+JuAUO87oXkygi3tIHDyw9OYLrYy1/dBWWec8nDOc=;
 h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
 b=KkT6Vy6BDeUDxnAo6LcjNkM5UoAeK3MsXeADYoAnLz7Qbssm1hJFwbz1I9Y3tJAKV
 TzZR7+7j0ZzFljFzYJxsikRMRRl5y094EUguGIjsYwCZCn/5T0NdDxJaK/ewpuSYQk
 o3+i37/8VzsJSOzavxFi28d5VD0WHJxTAiNPXG2s=
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/95798] [10/11 Regression] Initialization code ---
 suboptimal
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 10:42:10 +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: 9.3.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 10.2
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_status short_desc cf_reconfirmed_on cc
 target_milestone everconfirmed
Message-ID: <bug-95798-4-AuHYRvUR9B@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-95798-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-95798-4@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: <https://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: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 10:42:10 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D95798

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
            Summary|Initialization code ---     |[10/11 Regression]
                   |suboptimal                  |Initialization code ---
                   |                            |suboptimal
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2020-06-22
                 CC|                            |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
                   |                            |rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org
   Target Milestone|---                         |10.2
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The 9 -> 10 regression started with
r10-2806-gdf7d46d925c7baca7bf9961aee900876d8aef225
since which the IL is much larger and the resulting code less efficient.
The testcase as written is just weird, it is an expensive check whether the
program is called with multiple of 128 arguments >=3D 1024 arguments (other=
wise
it invokes UB).

Adjusted testcase that is more meaningful:
void bar (unsigned long long *, int);

void
foo (int y, unsigned long long z)
{
  unsigned long long x[1024];
  unsigned long long i =3D y % 127;
  __builtin_memset (x, -1, sizeof (x));
  x[i] =3D 0;
  x[i + 1] =3D 0;
  x[i + 2] =3D 0;
  x[i + 3] =3D 0;
  x[i + 4] =3D 0;
  x[i + 5] =3D 0;
  x[i + 6] =3D 0;
  x[i + 7] =3D 0;
  bar (x, y);
}=