public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug tree-optimization/103298] New: [12 regressions] regressions on arm after r12-5301 @ 2021-11-17 8:45 clyon at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-11-17 8:49 ` [Bug tree-optimization/103298] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ` (6 more replies) 0 siblings, 7 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: clyon at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-11-17 8:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103298 Bug ID: 103298 Summary: [12 regressions] regressions on arm after r12-5301 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: tree-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: clyon at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- r12-5301 is causing regressions on some arm targets: arm-none-linux-gnueabi -march=armv7-a -mthumb: FAIL: gcc.target/arm/pr42093.c scan-assembler-not tbb FAIL: gcc.target/arm/pr43920-2.c object-size text <= 54 arm-none-linux-gnueabi -march=armv5t -mthumb: FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/if-to-switch-3.c scan-tree-dump iftoswitch "Condition chain with [^\n\r]* BBs transformed into a switch statement." ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/103298] [12 regressions] regressions on arm after r12-5301 2021-11-17 8:45 [Bug tree-optimization/103298] New: [12 regressions] regressions on arm after r12-5301 clyon at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-11-17 8:49 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-11-17 21:38 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ` (5 subsequent siblings) 6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-11-17 8:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103298 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #0) > arm-none-linux-gnueabi -march=armv5t -mthumb: > FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/if-to-switch-3.c scan-tree-dump iftoswitch "Condition > chain with [^\n\r]* BBs transformed into a switch statement." PR 103278. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/103298] [12 regressions] regressions on arm after r12-5301 2021-11-17 8:45 [Bug tree-optimization/103298] New: [12 regressions] regressions on arm after r12-5301 clyon at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-11-17 8:49 ` [Bug tree-optimization/103298] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-11-17 21:38 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-11-18 7:44 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ` (4 subsequent siblings) 6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-11-17 21:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103298 Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Target Milestone|--- |12.0 Keywords| |missed-optimization ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/103298] [12 regressions] regressions on arm after r12-5301 2021-11-17 8:45 [Bug tree-optimization/103298] New: [12 regressions] regressions on arm after r12-5301 clyon at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-11-17 8:49 ` [Bug tree-optimization/103298] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-11-17 21:38 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-11-18 7:44 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-11-18 9:38 ` [Bug testsuite/103298] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ` (3 subsequent siblings) 6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-11-18 7:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103298 Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed| |2021-11-18 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> --- I will have a look. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/103298] [12 regressions] regressions on arm after r12-5301 2021-11-17 8:45 [Bug tree-optimization/103298] New: [12 regressions] regressions on arm after r12-5301 clyon at gcc dot gnu.org ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2021-11-18 7:44 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-11-18 9:38 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-11-18 11:36 ` rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org ` (2 subsequent siblings) 6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-11-18 9:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103298 Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org CC| |ramana at gcc dot gnu.org, | |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org Status|ASSIGNED |NEW Component|tree-optimization |testsuite --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #0) > r12-5301 is causing regressions on some arm targets: > > arm-none-linux-gnueabi -march=armv7-a -mthumb: > FAIL: gcc.target/arm/pr42093.c scan-assembler-not tbb The testcase seems to be for a wrong-code issue but was implemented as scan-assembler one which is now seemingly dependent on switch expansion heuristics. Previously we got ldr pc, [r6, r2, lsl #2] .align 2 .L6: .word .L14+1 ... but now cmp r2, #50 bhi .L1 tbb [pc, r2] .L5: .byte (.L7-.L5)/2 ... which looks more optimal to me. So the testcase is simply bogus? Defering to ARM folks. > FAIL: gcc.target/arm/pr43920-2.c object-size text <= 54 --- a/pr43920-2.s 2021-11-18 10:32:22.975744703 +0100 +++ b/pr43920-2.s 2021-11-18 10:31:56.763399263 +0100 @@ -34,18 +34,19 @@ mov r0, r7 bl lseek adds r2, r4, #1 - beq .L4 - adds r3, r0, #1 beq .L1 + adds r3, r0, #1 + beq .L4 subs r0, r0, r4 beq .L4 str r4, [r6] + movs r4, #0 str r0, [r5] - movs r0, #0 .L1: + mov r0, r4 pop {r3, r4, r5, r6, r7, pc} .L4: - mov r0, #-1 + mov r4, #-1 b .L1 well ... .optimized change: --- a/pr43920-2.c.250t.optimized 2021-11-18 10:32:22.951744385 +0100 +++ b/pr43920-2.c.250t.optimized 2021-11-18 10:31:56.739398949 +0100 @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ *length__13(D) = length_10; <bb 6> [local count: 1073741824]: - # _2 = PHI <end_9(3), 0(5), start_7(2), -1(4)> + # _2 = PHI <start_7(2), 0(5), end_9(3), -1(4)> return _2; } -Coalesce list: (2)_2 & (9)end_9 [map: 0, 3] : Success -> 0 -Coalesce list: (2)_2 & (7)start_7 [map: 0, 2] : Fail due to conflict +Coalesce list: (2)_2 & (7)start_7 [map: 0, 2] : Success -> 0 +Coalesce list: (2)_2 & (9)end_9 [map: 0, 3] : Fail due to conflict -Inserting a partition copy on edge BB2->BB6 : PART.1 = PART.3 +Inserting a partition copy on edge BB3->BB6 : PART.1 = PART.3 looks like a fuss to me (fragile testcase). Not sure if it is worth trying to for example sort PHI args after SSA name version for increased stability, at RTL expansion time we have exactly the same number of copies but I guess (just guess) that at RA time things start to differ. Again, ARM folks - please allow for the extra reg copy. > arm-none-linux-gnueabi -march=armv5t -mthumb: > FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/if-to-switch-3.c scan-tree-dump iftoswitch "Condition > chain with [^\n\r]* BBs transformed into a switch statement." should be fixed now. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/103298] [12 regressions] regressions on arm after r12-5301 2021-11-17 8:45 [Bug tree-optimization/103298] New: [12 regressions] regressions on arm after r12-5301 clyon at gcc dot gnu.org ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 2021-11-18 9:38 ` [Bug testsuite/103298] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-11-18 11:36 ` rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-05-06 8:31 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-05-08 12:23 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-11-18 11:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103298 --- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org> --- The test looks fragile. The instructions TBB and TBH can only support forward branches. If a label in the list of switch targets is backwards then they can't be used and a non-compressed table must be used. My guess is that what's happening here is that with other changes to the code generation all the branches are now forwards and that the TBB/TBH optimisation can be legitimately applied. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/103298] [12 regressions] regressions on arm after r12-5301 2021-11-17 8:45 [Bug tree-optimization/103298] New: [12 regressions] regressions on arm after r12-5301 clyon at gcc dot gnu.org ` (4 preceding siblings ...) 2021-11-18 11:36 ` rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-05-06 8:31 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-05-08 12:23 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-05-06 8:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103298 Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Target Milestone|12.0 |12.2 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- GCC 12.1 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 12.2. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/103298] [12 regressions] regressions on arm after r12-5301 2021-11-17 8:45 [Bug tree-optimization/103298] New: [12 regressions] regressions on arm after r12-5301 clyon at gcc dot gnu.org ` (5 preceding siblings ...) 2022-05-06 8:31 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-05-08 12:23 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-05-08 12:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103298 Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Target Milestone|12.3 |12.4 --- Comment #7 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> --- GCC 12.3 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 12.4. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-05-08 12:23 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2021-11-17 8:45 [Bug tree-optimization/103298] New: [12 regressions] regressions on arm after r12-5301 clyon at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-11-17 8:49 ` [Bug tree-optimization/103298] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-11-17 21:38 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-11-18 7:44 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-11-18 9:38 ` [Bug testsuite/103298] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-11-18 11:36 ` rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-05-06 8:31 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-05-08 12:23 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).