[Bug target/106724] logical-op-non-short-circuit maybe should be 1

2024-09-24 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106724 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|UNCONFIRME

[Bug target/106724] logical-op-non-short-circuit maybe should be 1

2022-08-24 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106724 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3) > we usually define logical-op-non-short-circuit based on branch cost Right, I think this definition was copied from the MIPS backend even which is wrong there t

[Bug target/106724] logical-op-non-short-circuit maybe should be 1

2022-08-24 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106724 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- we usually define logical-op-non-short-circuit based on branch cost

[Bug target/106724] logical-op-non-short-circuit maybe should be 1

2022-08-23 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106724 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- Well branch cost should be more tuned too. Here is an example where BRANCH_COST=4 is needed to get one branch: ``` int g(void); int f(int a, int b, int c, int d) { if (a > b && c > d) return g(); re

[Bug target/106724] logical-op-non-short-circuit maybe should be 1

2022-08-23 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106724 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Note clang/LLVM produces the branch-less version also.