public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug c++/96252] New: mis-optimization where identical functions have very different codegen since gcc 10 @ 2020-07-20 15:02 wjwray at gmail dot com 2020-07-20 17:32 ` [Bug c++/96252] " wjwray at gmail dot com ` (12 more replies) 0 siblings, 13 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: wjwray at gmail dot com @ 2020-07-20 15:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96252 Bug ID: 96252 Summary: mis-optimization where identical functions have very different codegen since gcc 10 Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: wjwray at gmail dot com Target Milestone: --- (Stumbled on this odd effect while examining codegen for operator<=>) The reduced sample compiles c++11 and up (std version likely irrelevant) with the different codegen occurring since GCC 10. Two identical functions: bool cmp_x(cmp l, cmp r) noexcept { return std::lexicographical_compare(begin(l),end(l) ,begin(r),end(r)); } bool cmp_y(cmp l, cmp r) noexcept { return std::lexicographical_compare(begin(l),end(l) ,begin(r),end(r)); } generate very different code for cmp = array<int,64> at -O2 and -O3. The first is looping, the second has much longer unrolled codegen. My benchmarks show 40% difference in runtime, quick-bench shows 30%. Compiler Explorer https://godbolt.org/z/97box6 Quick-bench 1.3x https://quick-bench.com/q/480qkw1sP4OWOH6JBxsm-J_9uOk (Adding -fno-inline may provide a clue.) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/96252] mis-optimization where identical functions have very different codegen since gcc 10 2020-07-20 15:02 [Bug c++/96252] New: mis-optimization where identical functions have very different codegen since gcc 10 wjwray at gmail dot com @ 2020-07-20 17:32 ` wjwray at gmail dot com 2020-07-21 6:57 ` [Bug ipa/96252] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ` (11 subsequent siblings) 12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: wjwray at gmail dot com @ 2020-07-20 17:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96252 --- Comment #1 from Will Wray <wjwray at gmail dot com> --- Here's the code, compiler invocation and codegen output. The longer codegen expands memcpy to copy the std::array by-value arguments. -fno-inline shows the compiler call the first function from the second, then, when it does so, it has to copy the arguments as both functions pass by value. /** compare_differing_codegen.cpp ******************/ #include <algorithm> #include <array> using cmp = std::array<int,64>; bool cmp_x(cmp l, cmp r) noexcept { return std::lexicographical_compare(begin(l),end(l) ,begin(r),end(r)); } bool cmp_y(cmp l, cmp r) noexcept { return std::lexicographical_compare(begin(l),end(l) ,begin(r),end(r)); } /** compiler invocation **************************/ > g++ --version g++ (GCC) 10.1.1 20200507 (Red Hat 10.1.1-1) > g++ -std=c++11 -O2 compare_differing_codegen.cpp -S > cat compare_differing_codegen.s .file "compare_differing_codegen.cpp" .text .p2align 4 .globl _Z5cmp_xSt5arrayIiLm64EES0_ .type _Z5cmp_xSt5arrayIiLm64EES0_, @function _Z5cmp_xSt5arrayIiLm64EES0_: .LFB890: .cfi_startproc leaq 264(%rsp), %rcx leaq 8(%rsp), %rax movq %rcx, %rdx .p2align 4,,10 .p2align 3 .L4: movl (%rdx), %esi cmpl %esi, (%rax) jl .L12 jg .L7 addq $4, %rax addq $4, %rdx cmpq %rcx, %rax jne .L4 leaq 520(%rsp), %rax cmpq %rax, %rdx setne %al ret .p2align 4,,10 .p2align 3 .L12: movl $1, %eax ret .p2align 4,,10 .p2align 3 .L7: xorl %eax, %eax ret .cfi_endproc .LFE890: .size _Z5cmp_xSt5arrayIiLm64EES0_, .-_Z5cmp_xSt5arrayIiLm64EES0_ .p2align 4 .globl _Z5cmp_ySt5arrayIiLm64EES0_ .type _Z5cmp_ySt5arrayIiLm64EES0_, @function _Z5cmp_ySt5arrayIiLm64EES0_: .LFB909: .cfi_startproc subq $400, %rsp .cfi_def_cfa_offset 408 movdqu 408(%rsp), %xmm0 leaq -120(%rsp), %rdx movdqu 424(%rsp), %xmm1 leaq 136(%rsp), %rax movdqu 440(%rsp), %xmm2 movdqu 456(%rsp), %xmm3 movdqu 472(%rsp), %xmm4 movups %xmm0, -120(%rsp) movdqu 488(%rsp), %xmm5 movdqu 504(%rsp), %xmm6 movups %xmm1, -104(%rsp) movdqu 520(%rsp), %xmm7 movdqu 536(%rsp), %xmm0 movups %xmm2, -88(%rsp) movdqu 552(%rsp), %xmm1 movdqu 568(%rsp), %xmm2 movups %xmm3, -72(%rsp) movdqu 584(%rsp), %xmm3 movups %xmm4, -56(%rsp) movdqu 600(%rsp), %xmm4 movups %xmm5, -40(%rsp) movdqu 616(%rsp), %xmm5 movups %xmm6, -24(%rsp) movdqu 632(%rsp), %xmm6 movups %xmm7, -8(%rsp) movdqu 648(%rsp), %xmm7 movups %xmm0, 8(%rsp) movups %xmm1, 24(%rsp) movups %xmm2, 40(%rsp) movups %xmm3, 56(%rsp) movups %xmm4, 72(%rsp) movups %xmm5, 88(%rsp) movups %xmm6, 104(%rsp) movups %xmm7, 120(%rsp) movdqu 664(%rsp), %xmm0 movdqu 680(%rsp), %xmm1 movdqu 696(%rsp), %xmm2 movdqu 712(%rsp), %xmm3 movdqu 728(%rsp), %xmm4 movdqu 744(%rsp), %xmm5 movups %xmm0, 136(%rsp) movdqu 760(%rsp), %xmm6 movups %xmm1, 152(%rsp) movdqu 776(%rsp), %xmm7 movdqu 792(%rsp), %xmm0 movups %xmm2, 168(%rsp) movdqu 808(%rsp), %xmm1 movdqu 824(%rsp), %xmm2 movups %xmm3, 184(%rsp) movdqu 840(%rsp), %xmm3 movups %xmm4, 200(%rsp) movdqu 856(%rsp), %xmm4 movups %xmm5, 216(%rsp) movdqu 872(%rsp), %xmm5 movups %xmm6, 232(%rsp) movdqu 888(%rsp), %xmm6 movups %xmm7, 248(%rsp) movdqu 904(%rsp), %xmm7 movups %xmm0, 264(%rsp) movups %xmm1, 280(%rsp) movups %xmm2, 296(%rsp) movups %xmm3, 312(%rsp) movups %xmm4, 328(%rsp) movups %xmm5, 344(%rsp) movups %xmm6, 360(%rsp) movups %xmm7, 376(%rsp) .p2align 4,,10 .p2align 3 .L15: movl (%rax), %ecx cmpl %ecx, (%rdx) jl .L16 jg .L17 addq $4, %rax leaq 392(%rsp), %rsi addq $4, %rdx cmpq %rsi, %rax jne .L15 .L17: xorl %eax, %eax addq $400, %rsp .cfi_remember_state .cfi_def_cfa_offset 8 ret .p2align 4,,10 .p2align 3 .L16: .cfi_restore_state movl $1, %eax addq $400, %rsp .cfi_def_cfa_offset 8 ret .cfi_endproc .LFE909: .size _Z5cmp_ySt5arrayIiLm64EES0_, .-_Z5cmp_ySt5arrayIiLm64EES0_ .ident "GCC: (GNU) 10.1.1 20200507 (Red Hat 10.1.1-1)" .section .note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug ipa/96252] mis-optimization where identical functions have very different codegen since gcc 10 2020-07-20 15:02 [Bug c++/96252] New: mis-optimization where identical functions have very different codegen since gcc 10 wjwray at gmail dot com 2020-07-20 17:32 ` [Bug c++/96252] " wjwray at gmail dot com @ 2020-07-21 6:57 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2020-07-21 6:58 ` [Bug ipa/96252] [10/11 Regression] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ` (10 subsequent siblings) 12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-07-21 6:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96252 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> --- It's IPA ICF that makes the difference. Guess the "thunk" isn't a thunk but copies parameters by value (fails to tail-call?). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug ipa/96252] [10/11 Regression] mis-optimization where identical functions have very different codegen since gcc 10 2020-07-20 15:02 [Bug c++/96252] New: mis-optimization where identical functions have very different codegen since gcc 10 wjwray at gmail dot com 2020-07-20 17:32 ` [Bug c++/96252] " wjwray at gmail dot com 2020-07-21 6:57 ` [Bug ipa/96252] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-07-21 6:58 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2020-07-23 6:51 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ` (9 subsequent siblings) 12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-07-21 6:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96252 Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|mis-optimization where |[10/11 Regression] |identical functions have |mis-optimization where |very different codegen |identical functions have |since gcc 10 |very different codegen | |since gcc 10 Target Milestone|--- |10.2 Known to work| |9.3.0 Priority|P3 |P2 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> --- GCC 9 correctly applies tail calling. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug ipa/96252] [10/11 Regression] mis-optimization where identical functions have very different codegen since gcc 10 2020-07-20 15:02 [Bug c++/96252] New: mis-optimization where identical functions have very different codegen since gcc 10 wjwray at gmail dot com ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2020-07-21 6:58 ` [Bug ipa/96252] [10/11 Regression] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-07-23 6:51 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-02-14 23:16 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ` (8 subsequent siblings) 12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-07-23 6:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96252 Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Target Milestone|10.2 |10.3 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> --- GCC 10.2 is released, adjusting target milestone. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug ipa/96252] [10/11 Regression] mis-optimization where identical functions have very different codegen since gcc 10 2020-07-20 15:02 [Bug c++/96252] New: mis-optimization where identical functions have very different codegen since gcc 10 wjwray at gmail dot com ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 2020-07-23 6:51 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-02-14 23:16 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-02-15 14:40 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz ` (7 subsequent siblings) 12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-02-14 23:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96252 Jan Hubicka <hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW CC| |hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org Last reconfirmed| |2021-02-14 --- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org> --- This looks like missed memory copy propagation to me. We inline the icfed function back but for some reason we end up with all those extra moves, so it does not seem to be problem with missed tailcall IPA function summary for bool cmp_y(cmp, cmp)/767 inlinable global time: 92.095312 self size: 13 global size: 14 min size: 11 self stack: 0 global stack: 0 size:11.000000, time:90.095312 size:3.000000, time:2.000000, executed if:(not inlined) calls: bool cmp_x(cmp, cmp)/804 inlined freq:1.00 Stack frame offset 0, callee self size 0 __lexicographical_compare_impl.isra/803 inlined freq:1.00 Stack frame offset 0, callee self size 0 Funny thing is that inliner seems to believe it is going to reduce code size: Considering bool cmp_x(cmp, cmp)/766 with 10 size to be inlined into bool cmp_y(cmp, cmp)/767 in unknown:0 Estimated badness is -inf, frequency 1.00. Badness calculation for bool cmp_y(cmp, cmp)/767 -> bool cmp_x(cmp, cmp)/766 size growth -3, time 16.000000 unspec 18.000000 big_speedup -inf: Growth -3 <= 0 Adjusted by hints -inf The body is: bool cmp_y (struct cmp l, struct cmp r) { int * __first1; int * __first2; struct cmp l; struct cmp r; int _8; int _9; bool _17; <bb 2> [local count: 1073741824]: l = l; r = r; goto <bb 5>; [100.00%] <bb 3> [local count: 9416790681]: if (_8 > _9) goto <bb 6>; [3.66%] else goto <bb 4>; [96.34%] <bb 4> [local count: 9072136140]: __first1_11 = __first1_21 + 4; __first2_13 = __first2_2 + 4; if (&MEM <struct cmp> [(void *)&r + 256B] != __first2_13) goto <bb 5>; [95.91%] else goto <bb 6>; [4.09%] <bb 5> [local count: 9774538809]: # __first1_21 = PHI <__first1_11(4), &l._M_elems(2)> # __first2_2 = PHI <__first2_13(4), &r._M_elems(2)> _8 = MEM[(int *)__first1_21]; _9 = MEM[(int *)__first2_2]; if (_8 < _9) goto <bb 6>; [3.66%] else goto <bb 3>; [96.34%] <bb 6> [local count: 1073741824]: # _17 = PHI <0(3), 1(5), 0(4)> <bb 6> [local count: 1073741824]: # _17 = PHI <0(3), 1(5), 0(4)> l ={v} {CLOBBER}; r ={v} {CLOBBER}; return _17; } Richi, in any case, we may want to avoid creating wrappers for functions with very large parameters? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug ipa/96252] [10/11 Regression] mis-optimization where identical functions have very different codegen since gcc 10 2020-07-20 15:02 [Bug c++/96252] New: mis-optimization where identical functions have very different codegen since gcc 10 wjwray at gmail dot com ` (4 preceding siblings ...) 2021-02-14 23:16 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-02-15 14:40 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz 2021-04-08 12:02 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ` (6 subsequent siblings) 12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: hubicka at ucw dot cz @ 2021-02-15 14:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96252 --- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz> --- Thinking of it, perhaps also inliner could take a hint that it is inlining a tail call and do not produce unnecesary copy of the functio parameter passed by value. More generally, mod/ref has good chance to determine that parameter in its original location is not modified by the call and we could avoid the copy even for non-tailcalls? Still would be interesting to know why copy propagation gives up. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug ipa/96252] [10/11 Regression] mis-optimization where identical functions have very different codegen since gcc 10 2020-07-20 15:02 [Bug c++/96252] New: mis-optimization where identical functions have very different codegen since gcc 10 wjwray at gmail dot com ` (5 preceding siblings ...) 2021-02-15 14:40 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz @ 2021-04-08 12:02 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-11-22 6:42 ` [Bug ipa/96252] [10/11/12 " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ` (5 subsequent siblings) 12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-04-08 12:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96252 Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Target Milestone|10.3 |10.4 --- Comment #7 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> --- GCC 10.3 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.4. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug ipa/96252] [10/11/12 Regression] mis-optimization where identical functions have very different codegen since gcc 10 2020-07-20 15:02 [Bug c++/96252] New: mis-optimization where identical functions have very different codegen since gcc 10 wjwray at gmail dot com ` (6 preceding siblings ...) 2021-04-08 12:02 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-11-22 6:42 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-06-28 10:41 ` [Bug ipa/96252] [10/11/12/13 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ` (4 subsequent siblings) 12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-11-22 6:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96252 Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |vegard.nossum at oracle dot com --- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> --- *** Bug 101474 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug ipa/96252] [10/11/12/13 Regression] mis-optimization where identical functions have very different codegen since gcc 10 2020-07-20 15:02 [Bug c++/96252] New: mis-optimization where identical functions have very different codegen since gcc 10 wjwray at gmail dot com ` (7 preceding siblings ...) 2021-11-22 6:42 ` [Bug ipa/96252] [10/11/12 " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-06-28 10:41 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-07-07 10:37 ` [Bug ipa/96252] [11/12/13/14 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ` (3 subsequent siblings) 12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-06-28 10:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96252 Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Target Milestone|10.4 |10.5 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug ipa/96252] [11/12/13/14 Regression] mis-optimization where identical functions have very different codegen since gcc 10 2020-07-20 15:02 [Bug c++/96252] New: mis-optimization where identical functions have very different codegen since gcc 10 wjwray at gmail dot com ` (8 preceding siblings ...) 2022-06-28 10:41 ` [Bug ipa/96252] [10/11/12/13 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-07-07 10:37 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-05-15 7:12 ` [Bug ipa/96252] [11/12/13/14/15 " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ` (2 subsequent siblings) 12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-07-07 10:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96252 Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Target Milestone|10.5 |11.5 --- Comment #10 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> --- GCC 10 branch is being closed. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug ipa/96252] [11/12/13/14/15 Regression] mis-optimization where identical functions have very different codegen since gcc 10 2020-07-20 15:02 [Bug c++/96252] New: mis-optimization where identical functions have very different codegen since gcc 10 wjwray at gmail dot com ` (9 preceding siblings ...) 2023-07-07 10:37 ` [Bug ipa/96252] [11/12/13/14 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-05-15 7:12 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-05-15 7:20 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-05-15 7:41 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-05-15 7:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96252 Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com --- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> --- *** Bug 115097 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug ipa/96252] [11/12/13/14/15 Regression] mis-optimization where identical functions have very different codegen since gcc 10 2020-07-20 15:02 [Bug c++/96252] New: mis-optimization where identical functions have very different codegen since gcc 10 wjwray at gmail dot com ` (10 preceding siblings ...) 2024-05-15 7:12 ` [Bug ipa/96252] [11/12/13/14/15 " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-05-15 7:20 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-05-15 7:41 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-05-15 7:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96252 --- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> --- I wonder if we could mark call statement that icf produces as noinline unless it is inlined? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug ipa/96252] [11/12/13/14/15 Regression] mis-optimization where identical functions have very different codegen since gcc 10 2020-07-20 15:02 [Bug c++/96252] New: mis-optimization where identical functions have very different codegen since gcc 10 wjwray at gmail dot com ` (11 preceding siblings ...) 2024-05-15 7:20 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-05-15 7:41 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-05-15 7:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96252 Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #12) > I wonder if we could mark call statement that icf produces as noinline > unless it is inlined? Or just mark the newly added callgraph edge for the tail call noinlinable? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-05-15 7:41 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 14+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2020-07-20 15:02 [Bug c++/96252] New: mis-optimization where identical functions have very different codegen since gcc 10 wjwray at gmail dot com 2020-07-20 17:32 ` [Bug c++/96252] " wjwray at gmail dot com 2020-07-21 6:57 ` [Bug ipa/96252] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2020-07-21 6:58 ` [Bug ipa/96252] [10/11 Regression] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2020-07-23 6:51 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-02-14 23:16 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-02-15 14:40 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz 2021-04-08 12:02 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-11-22 6:42 ` [Bug ipa/96252] [10/11/12 " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-06-28 10:41 ` [Bug ipa/96252] [10/11/12/13 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-07-07 10:37 ` [Bug ipa/96252] [11/12/13/14 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-05-15 7:12 ` [Bug ipa/96252] [11/12/13/14/15 " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-05-15 7:20 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-05-15 7:41 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
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).