https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108826
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lis8215 at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108826
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to palmer from comment #5)
> We've run into a handful of things that look like this before, I'm not sure
> if it's a backend issue or something more general. There's two patterns
> here that are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108826
--- Comment #5 from palmer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
We've run into a handful of things that look like this before, I'm not sure if
it's a backend issue or something more general. There's two patterns here that
are frequently bad on RISC-V:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108826
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108826
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Note I need to better understand why the C++ front-end thinks this would be
> invalid ...
Oh because the struct name is unnamed :).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108826
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Actually this is aarch64:
ldr x1, [x0, #:lo12:.LANCHOR0]
ldr w0, [x3, 8]
and w0, w2, w0, lsr 6
add x0, x0, 200
ldr w0, [x1, x0, lsl 2]
str
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108826
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
AARCH64 looks ok too because of the use of more complex adddresses:
ldr w0, [x0, #:lo12:.LANCHOR0]
and w0, w2, w0, lsr 6
add x0, x0, 200
ldr w0, [x1, x0, lsl
