[Bug middle-end/109326] Sub-optimal assembler code generation for valid C on x86-64

2023-03-29 Thread susurrus.of.qualia at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109326 --- Comment #6 from Steve Thompson --- (In reply to Steve Thompson from comment #5) > 18 16 32 > 64B code: > > 1.2K code: Sorry, my touchpad glitched and sent prematurely. For the overlarge vectorized version I hate: [28] n

[Bug middle-end/109326] Sub-optimal assembler code generation for valid C on x86-64

2023-03-29 Thread susurrus.of.qualia at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109326 --- Comment #5 from Steve Thompson --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4) > (In reply to Steve Thompson from comment #3) > > However I don't understand why olock_reset_op() is so large. It's > > a trivial initializer for a descriptor w