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 tree-optimization/99199] [9/10/11 Regression] Very large boolean expression leads to quite a few return statements Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 16:47:26 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-99199-4-ejYyOV7hS3@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-99199-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99199 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- Until before pro_and_epilogue we have a bb with just code_label, note and return reg use which has 65 predecessors. The pro_and_epilogue pass turns that into 65 simple_return jumps. The ret insns at the end are there since the bbro pass, before that they are at various spots in the IL and depending on the branch probabilities could even make sense. I guess we'd need some simplified crossjumping either during the bbro pass when going from cfglayout mode into cfgrtl mode, or afterwards (but not too many passes are left there) that would be able to cross-jump bbs containing those: (code_label 1552 999 925 128 147 (nil) [1 uses]) (note 925 1552 1389 128 [bb 128] NOTE_INSN_BASIC_BLOCK) (insn 1389 925 926 128 (use (reg/i:QI 0 ax)) -1 (nil)) (jump_insn 926 1389 927 128 (simple_return) 837 {simple_return_internal} (nil) -> simple_return)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-02-22 16:47 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-02-22 14:16 [Bug tree-optimization/99199] New: " tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-02-22 14:17 ` [Bug tree-optimization/99199] " tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-02-22 14:52 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-02-22 16:47 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org [this message] 2021-02-23 8:15 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/99199] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-02-26 11:55 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-04-27 11:40 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/99199] [9/10/11/12 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-07-28 7:05 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-12-16 7:32 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-12-16 7:37 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-12-16 8:39 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-04-21 7:48 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-05-29 10:04 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/99199] [10/11/12/13/14 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-09-02 21:15 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/99199] [11/12/13/14 " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-03-11 2:48 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/99199] [11 " law 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-99199-4-ejYyOV7hS3@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: linkBe 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).