https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114800
Bug ID: 114800
Summary: redundant set-zero when initiate a struct
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114693
Bug ID: 114693
Summary: `expand` introduce redundant store facing logic
expression
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114688
Bug ID: 114688
Summary: repeat load argument of an inline function
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113951
--- Comment #2 from absoler at smail dot nju.edu.cn ---
after sched1 modified the code, ce3 introduced this extra load. un-sched1 code
would not be pessimised by ce3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114595
--- Comment #1 from absoler at smail dot nju.edu.cn ---
gcc-4's result:
```
func_1():
movlg1(%rip), %eax
andl$1, %eax
movb%al, g2(%rip)
movl%eax, g3(%rip)
ret
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114595
Bug ID: 114595
Summary: rtl-expand emit redundant store for bitwise-and
expression
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114591
Bug ID: 114591
Summary: rtl-reload introduce an extra load operation since
gcc-12
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114030
--- Comment #3 from absoler at smail dot nju.edu.cn ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Reduced testcase:
> ```
> union U0 {
>int f2;
>char f4;
> };
>
> int g_3;
> union U0 g_34 = {-1L};
> char func_1() {
> int t11 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107051
--- Comment #2 from absoler at smail dot nju.edu.cn ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> With -O2 I see
>
> func_1:
> .LFB0:
> .cfi_startproc
> movle(%rip), %eax
> testl %eax, %eax
> je
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114489
Bug ID: 114489
Summary: introduced redundant load facing different branches
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114258
Bug ID: 114258
Summary: repeat store operation when copying a union
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114236
Bug ID: 114236
Summary: introduce unnecessary store operation when unrolling a
loop
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114173
Bug ID: 114173
Summary: miss optimization of redundant load operation, may
confused by type conversion
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114169
Bug ID: 114169
Summary: miss optimization of repeat load in place
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114030
Bug ID: 114030
Summary: redundant load of inline function's arguments
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113985
Bug ID: 113985
Summary: redundant copy of return values at O0
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113964
Bug ID: 113964
Summary: repeat copy of struct
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106615
--- Comment #2 from absoler at smail dot nju.edu.cn ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Reduced testcase:
> int g_44;
>
> void func_16(int *a, unsigned long int b) {
> *a = 5;
> if ((g_44 = 1) <= b)
> ;
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113951
Bug ID: 113951
Summary: regression redundant load
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113838
--- Comment #5 from absoler at smail dot nju.edu.cn ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> The difference from the gimple level IR:
> ```
> _14 = g_26[5][3][0];
> _15 = (int) _14;
> _16 = _13 ^ _15;
> g_51 = _16;
> if (_13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113838
--- Comment #4 from absoler at smail dot nju.edu.cn ---
@(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Disabling optimizations and then wondering why optimizations didn't happen
> is too weird. Don't do that. Such options are intended for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113838
--- Comment #3 from absoler at smail dot nju.edu.cn ---
The gimple ir has no problem, but `_13` is replaced with g_26[5][3][0] in the
follow-up process, this shouldn't be expected behavior.
We question this option because we found in an older
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113838
Bug ID: 113838
Summary: regression of redundant load operation introduced by
-fno-tree-forwprop introduce
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113107
Bug ID: 113107
Summary: miss optimization of an unmerged load operation
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107047
--- Comment #3 from absoler at smail dot nju.edu.cn ---
and for union there's similar behavior:
union U2 {
long long f0;
unsigned short f2;
int f4;
};
void func_17(union U2 p_20);
void func_1() {
func_17(g_39[0]);
}
void
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107051
Bug ID: 107051
Summary: redundant loads when copying a union
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107050
Bug ID: 107050
Summary: duplicate load of return value when facing multiple
branches
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107047
Bug ID: 107047
Summary: load introduced of struct fields after assigning it to
a local variable
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106615
Bug ID: 106615
Summary: redundant load and store introduced in if-true-branch
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105546
--- Comment #1 from absoler at smail dot nju.edu.cn ---
and it's the load of g_344 that we care about.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105546
Bug ID: 105546
Summary: load introduction when copying a struct
Product: gcc
Version: 11.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105453
Bug ID: 105453
Summary: wrong choice of source in load instruction
Product: gcc
Version: 11.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105448
Bug ID: 105448
Summary: load introduced when passing a struct as argument
Product: gcc
Version: 11.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105447
Bug ID: 105447
Summary: load introduction when reading an adjacent variable
Product: gcc
Version: 11.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
34 matches
Mail list logo
