[Bug middle-end/106323] [Suboptimal] memcmp(s1, s2, n) == 0 expansion on AArch64 compare to llvm

2022-12-06 Thread zhongyunde at huawei dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106323 --- Comment #4 from vfdff --- Now, llvm use 4 loads and CMP+CCMP, https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/PM3jxEM9M

[Bug middle-end/106323] [Suboptimal] memcmp(s1, s2, n) == 0 expansion on AArch64 compare to llvm

2022-07-18 Thread wilco at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106323 Wilco changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 from

[Bug middle-end/106323] [Suboptimal] memcmp(s1, s2, n) == 0 expansion on AArch64 compare to llvm

2022-07-17 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106323 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||104611 --- Comment #2 from Andrew

[Bug middle-end/106323] [Suboptimal] memcmp(s1, s2, n) == 0 expansion on AArch64 compare to llvm

2022-07-17 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106323 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- GCC might be better if the first bytes are in cache but the next bytes are not and then branch is predictable (which it might be). So this is much more complex than just changing this really.