[Bug testsuite/42855] New: FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized *

[Bug testsuite/42855] New: FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized *

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr]

On powerpc*-*-* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c fails with:

FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized "struct _fat_ptr
_ans" 0
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized "struct _fat_ptr
_T2" 0

(see http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-01/msg02116.html or
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-01/msg02115.html ):

[karma] f90/bug% gcc45 -c -O1 -fdump-tree-optimized
/opt/gcc/gcc-4.5-work/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c
[karma] f90/bug% grep struct pr42585.c.139t.optimized
Cyc_string_ungetc (int ignore, struct _fat_ptr * sptr)
  struct _fat_ptr _ans;
  struct _fat_ptr _T2;


This has probably started with

Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Jan 21 16:18:06 2010
New Revision: 156156

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=156156
Log:
2010-01-21  Martin Jambor  <mjambor@suse.cz>

        PR tree-optimization/42585
        * tree-sra.c (struct access): New field grp_total_scalarization.
        (dump_access): Dump the new field.
        (should_scalarize_away_bitmap): New variable.
        (cannot_scalarize_away_bitmap): Likewise.
        (sra_initialize): Allocate new bitmaps.
        (sra_deinitialize): Free new bitmaps.
        (create_access_1): New function.
        (create_access): Parts moved to create_access_1.
        (type_consists_of_records_p): New function.
        (completely_scalarize_record): Likewise.
        (build_access_from_expr): Set bit in cannot_scalarize_away_bitmap.
        (build_accesses_from_assign): Set bits in should_scalarize_away_bitmap.
        (sort_and_splice_var_accesses): Hint groups with a total_scalarization
        access.
        (analyze_all_variable_accesses): Completely scalarize small eligible
        records.

        * testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c: New test.


Added:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c
Modified:
    trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/tree-sra.c


-- 
           Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c scan-tree-dump-times
                    optimized *
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.5.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: testsuite
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
 GCC build triplet: powerpc*-*-*
  GCC host triplet: powerpc*-*-*
GCC target triplet: powerpc*-*-*


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42855

[Bug testsuite/42855] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized *

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-01-24 16:58 -------
It's a new test.  Probably MOVE_RATIO is not defined for your target and thus
the default of 2 applies.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42855

[Bug testsuite/42855] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized *

[jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #2 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-02-05 13:08 -------
I wonder what to do about this.  Perhaps I should change the test to
run only on i386, x86_64 and perhaps some other enumerated platforms?
That would be enough to alert us if SRA was failing in this regard and
would not have any effect on platforms that might have their limits
set in all sorts of ways.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42855

[Bug testsuite/42855] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized *

[jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #3 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-03-04 14:55 -------
Patch submitted to the mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-03/msg00208.html


-- 

jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|mjambor at suse dot cz      |jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |                            |org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42855

[Bug testsuite/42855] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized *

[pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #4 from pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-07-14 18:18 -------
Based on the last post in the patch thread should the patch be committed so the
testsuite failures go away and this can be closed?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42855

[Bug testsuite/42855] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized *

[jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #5 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-07-21 17:19 -------
(In reply to comment #4)
> Based on the last post in the patch thread should the patch be committed so the
> testsuite failures go away and this can be closed?
> 

I do not think I got an approval to commit the patch.  I'll be happy
to cooperate with respective architecture maintainers to resolve this
issue in one way or another.  (However, this is not important enough
for me to go and actively try to force their attention this way.)


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42855

[Bug testsuite/42855] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized *

[dje at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #6 from dje at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-07-21 23:52 -------
I think the thread about the patch became confused.

First, Janis essentially approved the testsuite patch.

Second, Martin commented that the failure probably was due to MOVE_RATIO not
defined.  The statement caused some misunderstanding.  MOVE_RATIO does not need
to be defined and the failure is not caused by a missing definition.  The
default value of MOVE_RATIO (used by PPC and ARM) cause the heuristic to
disable the optimization being tested.

If the optimization is not expected to occur on some platforms, then the
testcase should be disabled as implemented by the patch or the testcase
explicitly should set some gcc param that ensures the optimization will occur
on all targets.


-- 

dje at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |dje at gcc dot gnu dot org
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2010-07-21 23:52:38
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42855

[Bug testsuite/42855] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized *

[jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #7 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-08-04 19:33 -------
(In reply to comment #6)
> I think the thread about the patch became confused.
> 
> First, Janis essentially approved the testsuite patch.

OK, I've re-submitted the patch to the mailing list and will commit it
tomorrow if nobody objects.  Thanks.

> 
> Second, Martin commented that the failure probably was due to MOVE_RATIO not
> defined.  The statement caused some misunderstanding.  MOVE_RATIO does not need
> to be defined and the failure is not caused by a missing definition.  The
> default value of MOVE_RATIO (used by PPC and ARM) cause the heuristic to
> disable the optimization being tested.
> 
> If the optimization is not expected to occur on some platforms, then the
> testcase should be disabled as implemented by the patch or the testcase
> explicitly should set some gcc param that ensures the optimization will occur
> on all targets.
> 

Well, MOVE_RATIO defines the ratio of costs of different methods of
copying memory.  Assuming that the default value is indeed the correct
one for those platforms, it is most probably OK that SRA decides not
to totally scalarize the aggregate in the testcase in question.  But
that is really what the platform maintainers should examine (or at
least someone who knows the platforms well enough should do it).


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42855

[Bug testsuite/42855] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized *

[jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #8 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-08-05 13:36 -------
Subject: Bug 42855

Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Aug  5 13:36:18 2010
New Revision: 162913

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=162913
Log:
2010-08-05  Martin Jambor  <mjambor@suse.cz>

        PR testsuite/42855
        * testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c: Skip dump scan on powerpc
        and arm.


Modified:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42855

[Bug testsuite/42855] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized *

[jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #9 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-09-01 11:13 -------
Fixed.


-- 

jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42855