https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69467
--- Comment #3 from Yuri Rumyantsev <ysrumyan at gmail dot com> --- Richard, I checked that performance is back with your patch. Thanks. 2016-01-25 17:50 GMT+03:00 rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org <gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org>: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69467 > > Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: > > What |Removed |Added > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED > Last reconfirmed| |2016-01-25 > Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot > gnu.org > Target Milestone|--- |6.0 > Ever confirmed|0 |1 > > --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > To restore the state before the move from fold to match.pd we'd need to mark > any such pattern involving compares as the outermost expr (and thus match > on GIMPLE_CONDs) with an explicit && single_use () check. Fix for this one: > > Index: gcc/match.pd > =================================================================== > --- gcc/match.pd (revision 232792) > +++ gcc/match.pd (working copy) > @@ -1821,12 +1821,13 @@ DEFINE_INT_AND_FLOAT_ROUND_FN (RINT) > (for cmp (simple_comparison) > scmp (swapped_simple_comparison) > (simplify > - (cmp (mult @0 INTEGER_CST@1) integer_zerop@2) > + (cmp (mult@3 @0 INTEGER_CST@1) integer_zerop@2) > /* Handle unfolded multiplication by zero. */ > (if (integer_zerop (@1)) > (cmp @1 @2) > (if (ANY_INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (@0)) > - && TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED (TREE_TYPE (@0))) > + && TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED (TREE_TYPE (@0)) > + && single_use (@3)) > /* If @1 is negative we swap the sense of the comparison. */ > (if (tree_int_cst_sgn (@1) < 0) > (scmp @0 @2) > > -- > You are receiving this mail because: > You reported the bug.
