[Bug c++/90178] [9 Regression] Missed optimization: duplicated terminal basic block with -mavx

2019-04-19 Thread hjl.tools at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90178 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/90178] [9 Regression] Missed optimization: duplicated terminal basic block with -mavx

2019-04-19 Thread hjl.tools at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90178 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Host||ubizjak at gmail dot com --- Comment #2 from H

[Bug c++/90178] [9 Regression] Missed optimization: duplicated terminal basic block with -mavx

2019-04-19 Thread hjl.tools at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90178 --- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu --- It is caused by r266358.

[Bug c++/90178] [9 Regression] Missed optimization: duplicated terminal basic block with -mavx

2019-04-19 Thread hjl.tools at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90178 --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu --- The removed insn is insn 35 in: ;; basic block 8, loop depth 0, count 114863532 (estimated locally), maybe hot ;; prev block 7, next block 1, flags: (REACHABLE, HOT_PARTITION, RTL) ;; pred: 7 [always] cou

[Bug c++/90178] [9 Regression] Missed optimization: duplicated terminal basic block with -mavx

2019-04-19 Thread hjl.tools at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90178 --- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu --- zveroupper pass drops: (insn 36 37 51 8 (use (reg/i:DI 0 ax)) "x.i":8:1 -1 (nil))

[Bug c++/90178] [9 Regression] Missed optimization: duplicated terminal basic block with -mavx

2019-04-19 Thread hjl.tools at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90178 --- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3) > It is caused by r266358. The nop INSN can be removed by split_all_insns later: if (INSN_P (insn)) { rtx set = single_set (insn);

[Bug c++/90178] [9 Regression] Missed optimization: duplicated terminal basic block with -mavx

2019-04-21 Thread paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90178 --- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini --- The Component field is wrong, right?