https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111563
--- Comment #6 from Yi <652023330028 at smail dot nju.edu.cn> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> (In reply to Yi from comment #2)
> > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > > _5 = var_0_16(D) + var_6_18(D);
> > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111563
--- Comment #5 from Yi <652023330028 at smail dot nju.edu.cn> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> So this is again reassociation with LIM, the same issue as PR 111560.
For this similar code, GCC works as expected:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111563
--- Comment #4 from Yi <652023330028 at smail dot nju.edu.cn> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> (In reply to Yi from comment #2)
> > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > > _5 = var_0_16(D) + var_6_18(D);
> > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111563
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Yi from comment #2)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > _5 = var_0_16(D) + var_6_18(D);
> > invariant up to level 1, cost 1.
> >
> > Basically because the cost is not high
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111563
--- Comment #2 from Yi <652023330028 at smail dot nju.edu.cn> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> _5 = var_0_16(D) + var_6_18(D);
> invariant up to level 1, cost 1.
>
> Basically because the cost is not high enough ...
>
> If
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111563
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
