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 9587A3858D37; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 07:33:16 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 9587A3858D37
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
 s=default; t=1595230396;
 bh=krmpqEjFmsZ5xyCblrIKXBSQXHiDjLxeeEn2zsNiQMs=;
 h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
 b=puMA5INHRZUTzJL1s4ggcPmz3S+Zw045H2lsXpYPfV7reFcCdi20F4UVBsLupvuYm
 W142touhHtXN9RHv4x9xcy03gxxegXDcUPNJlx+PQKJGvMrA1xjYKWLIetn+VstSLC
 R5W0q4HkF52A+WWRMu/XehR38R5q3ytYunDgIQos=
From: "crazylht at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/96244] Redudant mask load generated
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 07:33:16 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: crazylht at gmail dot com
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: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-96244-4-aiJj7D2VY9@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-96244-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-96244-4@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, 20 Jul 2020 07:33:16 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D96244

--- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu <crazylht at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> so range-info is one index too pessimistic here.  So IMHO it's not about
> "redundant" masked loads, it's about the fact that we end up with loads
> at all here.  If c and d would not be register arguments we would have to
> perform loads and if they might trap we could not elide the masked load.

compared to masked load, load seems to be be more probably eliminated by
backend for this situation.=