[Bug target/82935] Unnecessary "sub rsp, 8", "call" and "add rsp, 8" instructions

2017-11-10 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82935 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- Well, clang uses a tail call, and we don't. And the reason why we don't is that the call is introduced only during expansion and doesn't therefore have the GF_CALL_TAILCALL flag set (CALL_EXPR_TAILCALL on

[Bug target/82935] Unnecessary "sub rsp, 8", "call" and "add rsp, 8" instructions

2017-11-10 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82935 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/82935] Unnecessary "sub rsp, 8", "call" and "add rsp, 8" instructions

2017-11-10 Thread glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82935 --- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse --- We keep *a1_2(D) = *a2_3(D); and only at expansion time turn it into a call to memcpy, so the gimple pass that detects tail calls doesn't have a chance to notice this case.

[Bug target/82935] Unnecessary "sub rsp, 8", "call" and "add rsp, 8" instructions

2017-11-10 Thread ubizjak at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82935 --- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to Antony Polukhin from comment #2) > Because Clang does not generate them. So, the Earth is flat because someone says, too?

[Bug target/82935] Unnecessary "sub rsp, 8", "call" and "add rsp, 8" instructions

2017-11-10 Thread antoshkka at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82935 --- Comment #2 from Antony Polukhin --- > Why do you think these instructions are not needed? Because Clang does not generate them.

[Bug target/82935] Unnecessary "sub rsp, 8", "call" and "add rsp, 8" instructions

2017-11-10 Thread ubizjak at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82935 --- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak --- Why do you think these instructions are not needed?