* [Bug rtl-optimization/44484] [4.6 regression] revision 160260 caused sparc64 testsuite failures
2010-06-09 20:26 [Bug rtl-optimization/44484] New: [4.6 regression] revision 160260 caused sparc64 testsuite failures mikpe at it dot uu dot se
@ 2010-06-10 10:08 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-06-11 21:08 ` mikpe at it dot uu dot se
` (11 subsequent siblings)
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-06-10 10:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44484
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/44484] [4.6 regression] revision 160260 caused sparc64 testsuite failures
2010-06-09 20:26 [Bug rtl-optimization/44484] New: [4.6 regression] revision 160260 caused sparc64 testsuite failures mikpe at it dot uu dot se
2010-06-10 10:08 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/44484] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-06-11 21:08 ` mikpe at it dot uu dot se
2010-06-11 21:09 ` mikpe at it dot uu dot se
` (10 subsequent siblings)
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: mikpe at it dot uu dot se @ 2010-06-11 21:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2010-06-11 21:07 -------
Created an attachment (id=20896)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20896&action=view)
task-2.c test case from libgomp's test suite
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44484
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/44484] [4.6 regression] revision 160260 caused sparc64 testsuite failures
2010-06-09 20:26 [Bug rtl-optimization/44484] New: [4.6 regression] revision 160260 caused sparc64 testsuite failures mikpe at it dot uu dot se
2010-06-10 10:08 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/44484] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-06-11 21:08 ` mikpe at it dot uu dot se
@ 2010-06-11 21:09 ` mikpe at it dot uu dot se
2010-06-11 21:10 ` mikpe at it dot uu dot se
` (9 subsequent siblings)
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: mikpe at it dot uu dot se @ 2010-06-11 21:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2010-06-11 21:09 -------
Created an attachment (id=20897)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20897&action=view)
broken -S output from gcc-4.6-20100605
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44484
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/44484] [4.6 regression] revision 160260 caused sparc64 testsuite failures
2010-06-09 20:26 [Bug rtl-optimization/44484] New: [4.6 regression] revision 160260 caused sparc64 testsuite failures mikpe at it dot uu dot se
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2010-06-11 21:09 ` mikpe at it dot uu dot se
@ 2010-06-11 21:10 ` mikpe at it dot uu dot se
2010-06-11 21:27 ` mikpe at it dot uu dot se
` (8 subsequent siblings)
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: mikpe at it dot uu dot se @ 2010-06-11 21:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2010-06-11 21:10 -------
Created an attachment (id=20898)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20898&action=view)
working -S output from gcc-4.6-20100605 with r160260 reverted
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44484
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/44484] [4.6 regression] revision 160260 caused sparc64 testsuite failures
2010-06-09 20:26 [Bug rtl-optimization/44484] New: [4.6 regression] revision 160260 caused sparc64 testsuite failures mikpe at it dot uu dot se
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2010-06-11 21:10 ` mikpe at it dot uu dot se
@ 2010-06-11 21:27 ` mikpe at it dot uu dot se
2010-06-11 21:30 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: mikpe at it dot uu dot se @ 2010-06-11 21:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2010-06-11 21:27 -------
The bug is easily observed with a cross to sparc64-linux, using e.g. the
task-2.c test case in libgomp's libgomp.c test suite.
Diffing the -S output of 4.6-20100605 vanilla (bad) with the same where r160260
has been reverted (ok), we see:
--- task-2.s-bad 2010-06-11 22:45:02.000000000 +0200
+++ task-2.s-ok 2010-06-11 22:51:56.000000000 +0200
@@ -5,20 +5,21 @@
.proc 020
f2._omp_fn.1:
.register %g2, #scratch
+ .register %g3, #scratch
add %sp, -192, %sp
lduw [%o0+12], %g1
st %g1, [%sp+2235]
lduw [%o0+8], %g2
cmp %g2, 10
bne,pt %icc, .LL7
- nop
+ add %sp, 2235, %g3
ba,pt %xcc, .LL9
sub %sp, -192, %sp
.LL5:
.LL7:
membar 15
add %g1, 1, %g2
- cas [%sp+2235], %g1, %g2
+ cas [%g3], %g1, %g2
cmp %g1, %g2
bne,pt %icc, .LL5
mov %g2, %g1
So what r160260 did was to replace [%g3] in the cas instruction with
[%sp+2235], which doesn't work because cas cannot use [reg+offset] addressing
modes, it only accepts [reg] addressing modes.
Attempting to assemble these files confirms:
> sparc64-unknown-linux-as task-2.s-ok
> sparc64-unknown-linux-as task-2.s-bad
task-2.s-bad: Assembler messages:
task-2.s-bad:21: Error: Illegal operands
task-2.s-bad:48: Error: Illegal operands
To compile task-2.c I used sparc64-unknown-linux-gcc -mcpu=v9
-fmessage-length=0 -fopenmp -O2 -S task-2.c (the -mcpu=v9 may be redundant, but
that's what the libgomp test suite did on the actual sparc64 box).
My sparc64 cross is configured simply with --target=sparc64-unknown-linux
--enable-languages=c.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44484
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/44484] [4.6 regression] revision 160260 caused sparc64 testsuite failures
2010-06-09 20:26 [Bug rtl-optimization/44484] New: [4.6 regression] revision 160260 caused sparc64 testsuite failures mikpe at it dot uu dot se
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2010-06-11 21:27 ` mikpe at it dot uu dot se
@ 2010-06-11 21:30 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-06-11 21:30 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-06-11 21:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-11 21:30 -------
Investigating.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2010-06-11 21:30:34
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44484
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/44484] [4.6 regression] revision 160260 caused sparc64 testsuite failures
2010-06-09 20:26 [Bug rtl-optimization/44484] New: [4.6 regression] revision 160260 caused sparc64 testsuite failures mikpe at it dot uu dot se
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2010-06-11 21:30 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-06-11 21:30 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-06-11 21:32 ` bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-06-11 21:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-11 21:29 -------
*** Bug 44494 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |ro at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44484
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/44484] [4.6 regression] revision 160260 caused sparc64 testsuite failures
2010-06-09 20:26 [Bug rtl-optimization/44484] New: [4.6 regression] revision 160260 caused sparc64 testsuite failures mikpe at it dot uu dot se
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2010-06-11 21:30 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-06-11 21:32 ` bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-06-24 10:57 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-06-11 21:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-11 21:32 -------
This would appear to be a bug in the sparc backend then; my patch is only
exposing it. I'll not investigate further and leave this for a Sparc
maintainer since I have no clue about the machine.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44484
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/44484] [4.6 regression] revision 160260 caused sparc64 testsuite failures
2010-06-09 20:26 [Bug rtl-optimization/44484] New: [4.6 regression] revision 160260 caused sparc64 testsuite failures mikpe at it dot uu dot se
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2010-06-11 21:32 ` bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-06-24 10:57 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-06-24 11:06 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-06-24 10:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #8 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-24 10:57 -------
The cas/casx insns only allow (mem (reg)) addressing:
(match_operand:I48MODE 1 "memory_reg_operand" "+m")
(match_operand:DI 1 "memory_reg_operand" "+m")
The memory_reg_operand predicate checks this and fails if it is not a memory
with a single reg, but apparently there is no constraint letter that would
require the same. So, either we need to add a new constraint letter for memory
that satisfies memory_reg_operand, or find out why predicate hasn't been
consulted.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44484
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/44484] [4.6 regression] revision 160260 caused sparc64 testsuite failures
2010-06-09 20:26 [Bug rtl-optimization/44484] New: [4.6 regression] revision 160260 caused sparc64 testsuite failures mikpe at it dot uu dot se
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2010-06-24 10:57 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-06-24 11:06 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-07-22 20:02 ` bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-06-24 11:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #9 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-24 11:06 -------
> The memory_reg_operand predicate checks this and fails if it is not a memory
> with a single reg, but apparently there is no constraint letter that would
> require the same. So, either we need to add a new constraint letter for memory
> that satisfies memory_reg_operand, or find out why predicate hasn't been
> consulted.
Adding a new constraint letter yields reload failures, presumably because
reload doesn't know how to go from MEM[reg+offset] to MEM[reg] on its own.
Bernd, are you really sure the predicate can be bypassed like that?
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC|ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot|
|org |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44484
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/44484] [4.6 regression] revision 160260 caused sparc64 testsuite failures
2010-06-09 20:26 [Bug rtl-optimization/44484] New: [4.6 regression] revision 160260 caused sparc64 testsuite failures mikpe at it dot uu dot se
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2010-06-24 11:06 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-07-22 20:02 ` bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-07-25 21:32 ` [Bug target/44484] " ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-07-25 21:35 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-07-22 20:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #10 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 20:02 -------
Huh, I thought I'd replied to this weeks ago - probably wasn't logged in.
Reload can't determine the required structure of a memory address from a
predicate name, so it ignores predicates and only looks at constraints.
One way of fixing this might be to make the mem explicit in the pattern, and
require a register_operand as its address. It might also work to keep the
memory_operand but add a constraint that only allows single-reg addresses; if
that fails as you say maybe you need to define secondary reloads for it? Can't
tell for sure without seeing the code and the failure.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44484
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug target/44484] [4.6 regression] revision 160260 caused sparc64 testsuite failures
2010-06-09 20:26 [Bug rtl-optimization/44484] New: [4.6 regression] revision 160260 caused sparc64 testsuite failures mikpe at it dot uu dot se
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2010-07-22 20:02 ` bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-07-25 21:32 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-07-25 21:35 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-07-25 21:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #11 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-25 21:32 -------
Subject: Bug 44484
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Sun Jul 25 21:32:16 2010
New Revision: 162520
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=162520
Log:
PR target/44484
* config/sparc/predicates.md (memory_reg_operand): Delete.
* config/sparc/sync.md (sync_compare_and_swap): Minor tweaks.
(*sync_compare_and_swap): Encode the address form in the pattern.
(*sync_compare_and_swapdi_v8plus): Likewise.
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/config/sparc/predicates.md
trunk/gcc/config/sparc/sync.md
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44484
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug target/44484] [4.6 regression] revision 160260 caused sparc64 testsuite failures
2010-06-09 20:26 [Bug rtl-optimization/44484] New: [4.6 regression] revision 160260 caused sparc64 testsuite failures mikpe at it dot uu dot se
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2010-07-25 21:32 ` [Bug target/44484] " ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-07-25 21:35 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-07-25 21:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #12 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-25 21:35 -------
At long last.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
URL| |http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
| |patches/2010-
| |07/msg01999.html
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44484
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread