https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64317
--- Comment #11 from Ilya Enkovich <enkovich.gnu at gmail dot com> --- (In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #10) > I guess it is easy to check by preventing pic pseudo generation. i386 back-end doesn't support fixed PIC register any more. This test case demonstrates performance regression in some EEMBC 1.1 tests caused by pseudo PIC register introduction. It is unclear why RA decided to spill PIC register. If we look at loop's code then we see PIC register is used in each line of code and seems to be the most used register. It also seems weird to me that code for the first loop becomes much better (with no PIC reg fills) if we restrict inlining for the other one. How does the second loop affect allocation in the first one?
