A question about redundant PHI expression stmt

["Jiangning Liu" <jiangning dot liu at arm dot com>]

Hi,

For the small case below, there are some redundant PHI expression stmt
generated, and finally cause back-end generates redundant copy instructions
due to some reasons around IRA.

int *l, *r, *g;
void test_func(int n)
{
	int i;
	static int j;
	static int pos, direction, direction_pre;

	pos = 0;
	direction = 1;

	for ( i = 0; i < n; i++ )
	{
		direction_pre = direction;

		for ( j = 0; j <= 400; j++ )
		{

			if ( g[pos] == 200 )
				break;

			if ( direction == 0 )
				pos = l[pos];
			else
				pos = r[pos];

			if ( pos == -1 )
			{
				if ( direction_pre != direction )
					break;

				pos = 0;
				direction = !direction;
			}

		}

		f(g[pos]);
	}
}

I know PR39976 has something to do with this case, and check-in r182140
caused big degradation on the real benchmark, but I'm still confusing around
this issue.

The procedure is like this,

Loop store motion generates code below,

<bb 6>:
  D.4084_17 = l.4_13 + D.4077_70;
  pos.5_18 = *D.4084_17;
  pos_lsm.34_103 = pos.5_18;
  goto <bb 8>;

<bb 7>:
  D.4088_23 = r.6_19 + D.4077_70;
  pos.7_24 = *D.4088_23;
  pos_lsm.34_104 = pos.7_24;

<bb 8>:
  # prephitmp.29_89 = PHI <pos.5_18(6), pos.7_24(7)>
  # pos_lsm.34_53 = PHI <pos_lsm.34_103(6), pos_lsm.34_104(7)>
  pos.2_25 = prephitmp.29_89;
  if (pos.2_25 == -1)
    goto <bb 9>;
  else
    goto <bb 20>;

And then, copy propagation transforms block 8 it into 

<bb 8>:
  # prephitmp.29_89 = PHI <pos.5_18(11), pos.7_24(12)>
  # pos_lsm.34_53 = PHI <pos.5_18(11), pos.7_24(12)>
  ...

And then, these two duplicated PHI stmts have been kept until expand pass. 

In dom2, a stmt like below

  # pos_lsm.34_54 = PHI <pos_lsm.34_53(13), 0(16)>

is transformed into

  # pos_lsm.34_54 = PHI <prephitmp.29_89(13), 0(16)>

just because they are equal.

Unfortunately, this transformation changed back-end behavior to generate
redundant copy instructions and hurt performance. This case is from a real
benchmark and hurt performance a lot.

Does the fix in r182140 intend to totally clean up this kind of redundancy?
Where should we get it fixed?

Thanks,
-Jiangning