[Bug rtl-optimization/69052] [6 Regression] Performance regression after r229402.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69052 --- Comment #17 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: amker Date: Mon Mar 7 16:39:27 2016 New Revision: 234034 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234034=gcc=rev Log: PR rtl-optimization/69052 * rtlanal.c

[Bug rtl-optimization/69052] [6 Regression] Performance regression after r229402.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69052 --- Comment #16 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to amker from comment #14) > Author: amker > Date: Wed Mar 2 14:10:56 2016 > New Revision: 233907 > > URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233907=gcc=rev > Log: > > PR

[Bug rtl-optimization/69052] [6 Regression] Performance regression after r229402.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69052 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug rtl-optimization/69052] [6 Regression] Performance regression after r229402.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69052 --- Comment #14 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: amker Date: Wed Mar 2 14:10:56 2016 New Revision: 233907 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233907=gcc=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/69052 * loop-invariant.c

[Bug rtl-optimization/69052] [6 Regression] Performance regression after r229402.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69052 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug rtl-optimization/69052] [6 Regression] Performance regression after r229402.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69052 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1

[Bug rtl-optimization/69052] [6 Regression] Performance regression after r229402.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69052 --- Comment #12 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org --- Patch sent for review at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg00612.html It works for the reduced test case, could you please help me to check if it works for you original case? Thanks,

[Bug rtl-optimization/69052] [6 Regression] Performance regression after r229402.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69052 --- Comment #13 from Yuri Rumyantsev --- I checked that performance is back for the whole benchmark. Thanks a lot. Yuri. 2016-02-09 14:17 GMT+03:00 amker at gcc dot gnu.org : >

[Bug rtl-optimization/69052] [6 Regression] Performance regression after r229402.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69052 --- Comment #9 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Ilya Enkovich from comment #8) > (In reply to amker from comment #7) > > According to discussion at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2016-01/msg00190.html, > > hook is probably not wanted in

[Bug rtl-optimization/69052] [6 Regression] Performance regression after r229402.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69052 --- Comment #8 from Ilya Enkovich --- (In reply to amker from comment #7) > According to discussion at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2016-01/msg00190.html, > hook is probably not wanted in this case. > Bernd gave another proposal by moving combine

[Bug rtl-optimization/69052] [6 Regression] Performance regression after r229402.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69052 --- Comment #10 from Ilya Enkovich --- (In reply to amker from comment #9) > I know little about x86, is it because of generation of non-canonical rtl > expression after this change? > > Another question for this case is: Is it because operand

[Bug rtl-optimization/69052] [6 Regression] Performance regression after r229402.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69052 --- Comment #11 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Ilya Enkovich from comment #10) > (In reply to amker from comment #9) > > I know little about x86, is it because of generation of non-canonical rtl > > expression after this change? >

[Bug rtl-optimization/69052] [6 Regression] Performance regression after r229402.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69052 --- Comment #7 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Ilya Enkovich from comment #6) > (In reply to amker from comment #5) > > Not sure if stage4 is a good time for a new hook either. > > > > Any ideas? > > We can try to improve i386

[Bug rtl-optimization/69052] [6 Regression] Performance regression after r229402.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69052 Ilya Enkovich changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ienkovich at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug rtl-optimization/69052] [6 Regression] Performance regression after r229402.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69052 --- Comment #5 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Yuri Rumyantsev from comment #0) > In loop_invariant phase additional function inv_can_prop_to_addr_use which > tried to determine if forward propagation for cheap address is possible

[Bug rtl-optimization/69052] [6 Regression] Performance regression after r229402.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69052 --- Comment #4 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Igor Zamyatin from comment #3) > (In reply to amker from comment #2) > > It's my change, I will look into it. > > Any plans on this? Sorry for late response, I will try to get to

[Bug rtl-optimization/69052] [6 Regression] Performance regression after r229402.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69052 Igor Zamyatin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug rtl-optimization/69052] [6 Regression] Performance regression after r229402.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69052 --- Comment #2 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org --- It's my change, I will look into it.

[Bug rtl-optimization/69052] [6 Regression] Performance regression after r229402.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69052 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization Target|

[Bug rtl-optimization/69052] [6 Regression] Performance regression after r229402.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69052 --- Comment #1 from Yuri Rumyantsev --- Created attachment 37133 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37133=edit test-case to reproduce It should be compile with -O2 -m32 options to reproduce.