public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "rdapp at linux dot ibm.com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/104198] [12 regression] ifcvf change breaks 64-bit SPARC bootstrap
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2022 17:08:54 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-104198-4-3W8hPYYeom@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-104198-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104198

--- Comment #10 from rdapp at linux dot ibm.com ---
Created attachment 52297
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52297&action=edit
Tentative patch

I now have something that successfully bootstraps on s390x, PowerPC and SPARC
but I'm not really happy with it.

The idea is basically to check if the newly introduced sequence (getting passed
a cc comparison) emits an instruction other than the movcc that reads a
register used in the comparison.  I'm not sure what backends are supposed to
emit for such a sequence but most likely everything is admissible. 
reg_overlap_mentioned_p does not handle every rtx_code so special handling is
necessary which needs to be exhaustive in order for reg_overlap_mentioned_p not
to ICE.

I feel like this is not the best way to achieve what we want and would
appreciate some insight.  I attached the current full diff to master (including
the fix for the problem triggered by the or1k backend.  It's pretty
raw/unpolished/ugly but the idea should come across.

A full testsuite run on gcc202 just finished, 83 FAILs, but I haven't yet done
a comparison run from before the ifcvt changes.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-01-26 17:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-01-24  8:36 [Bug rtl-optimization/104198] New: " ro at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-01-24  8:36 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/104198] " ro at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-01-24  8:43 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-01-24  8:44 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
2022-01-24  9:04 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-01-24  9:06 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
2022-01-24  9:08 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-01-24  9:18 ` rdapp at linux dot ibm.com
2022-01-24  9:23 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
2022-01-24  9:26 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-01-24 16:54 ` rdapp at linux dot ibm.com
2022-01-25 12:27 ` rdapp at linux dot ibm.com
2022-01-26 17:08 ` rdapp at linux dot ibm.com [this message]
2022-01-27  9:36 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
2022-01-27 13:04 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
2022-01-31  7:14 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/104198] [12 regression] ifcvt " rdapp at linux dot ibm.com
2022-01-31 10:13 ` rdapp at linux dot ibm.com
2022-02-01  9:32 ` rdapp at linux dot ibm.com
2022-02-08 19:49 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-07 15:45 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-08 11:31 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
2022-03-08 11:33 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-104198-4-3W8hPYYeom@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
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).