https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85559
Bug ID: 85559
Summary: [meta-bug] Improve conditional move
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: meta-bug
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: hjl.tools at gmail dot com
Depends on: 22568, 29144, 46279, 56309, 65492, 78947, 80520,
80874, 81456, 82666, 82858, 83610, 85390
Target Milestone: ---
Target: x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
cmov generation should be improved.
Referenced Bugs:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22568
[Bug 22568] Should use cmov in some stituations
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29144
[Bug 29144] Missing if-conversion. If-conversion dependent on operand order.
Inconsistent if-conversion.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46279
[Bug 46279] cmov not hoisted out of the loop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56309
[Bug 56309] conditional moves instead of compare and branch result in almost 2x
slower code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65492
[Bug 65492] Bad optimization in -O3 due to if-conversion and/or unrolling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78947
[Bug 78947] sub-optimal code for (bool)(int ? int : int)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80520
[Bug 80520] [7/8/9 Regression] Performance regression from missing
if-conversion
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80874
[Bug 80874] gcc does not emit cmov for minmax
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81456
[Bug 81456] [7/8/9 Regression] x86-64 optimizer makes wrong decision when
optimizing for size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82666
[Bug 82666] [7/8/9 regression]: sum += (x>128/9 ? x : 0) puts the cmov on the
critical path (at -O2)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82858
[Bug 82858] __builtin_add_overflow() generates suboptimal code with unsigned
types on x86
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83610
[Bug 83610] __builtin_expect sometimes is ignored
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85390
[Bug 85390] possible missed optimisation / regression from 6.3 with conditional
expression
