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.
next prev 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: linkBe 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).