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)

  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: link
Be 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).