From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-prs-return-20317-listarch-gcc-prs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 12902 invoked by alias); 11 Jul 2002 05:46:01 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-prs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 12883 invoked by uid 71); 11 Jul 2002 05:46:00 -0000
Resent-Date: 11 Jul 2002 05:46:00 -0000
Resent-Message-ID: <20020711054600.12882.qmail@sources.redhat.com>
Resent-From: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org (GNATS Filer)
Resent-To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org
Resent-Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Resent-Reply-To: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, anamax@earthlink.net
Received: (qmail 11032 invoked by uid 61); 11 Jul 2002 05:36:56 -0000
Message-Id: <20020711053656.11031.qmail@sources.redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 22:46:00 -0000
From: anamax@earthlink.net
Reply-To: anamax@earthlink.net
To: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
X-Send-Pr-Version: gnatsweb-2.9.3 (1.1.1.1.2.31)
Subject: optimization/7270: Redundant compares not eliminated on x86.
X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00319.txt.bz2
List-Id: <gcc-prs.sourceware.org>


>Number:         7270
>Category:       optimization
>Synopsis:       Redundant compares not eliminated on x86.
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       serious
>Priority:       medium
>Responsible:    unassigned
>State:          open
>Class:          pessimizes-code
>Submitter-Id:   net
>Arrival-Date:   Wed Jul 10 22:46:00 PDT 2002
>Closed-Date:
>Last-Modified:
>Originator:     Andy Freeman
>Release:        gcc 3.1
>Organization:
>Environment:
Redhat 7.3
>Description:
A <= compare&branch followed by a == test on the same arguments uses a redundant compare for the == on x86.

Using built-in specs.
Configured with: ../gcc-3.1/configure 
Thread model: single
gcc version 3.1
>How-To-Repeat:
Look at the -O3 -S output for x86.  Notice the two cmpls on either side of the "ja .L4".  I believe that the second cmpl is unnecessary as the flags from the first should survive the "ja .L4".
>Fix:
Better value propagation.
>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
>Unformatted:
----gnatsweb-attachment----
Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="ii.cc"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="ii.cc"

dW5zaWduZWQgZm9vKHVuc2lnbmVkIGFbXSkgew0KICBmb3IoIHVuc2lnbmVkIGkgPSAwOyBpIDwg
MTA7ICsraSApIHsNCiAgICBpZiggaSA8PSBhW2ldICkgew0KICAgICAgaWYoIGkgPT0gYVtpXSAp
IHsNCglyZXR1cm4gOTsNCiAgICAgIH0gZWxzZSB7DQoJcmV0dXJuIDE1Ow0KICAgICAgfQ0KICAg
IH0NCiAgfQ0KfQ0K