public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug target/105122] New: [12 Regression] Testsuite failures since r12-7931 on i686-linux
@ 2022-04-01 10:29 jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-01 10:29 ` [Bug target/105122] " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 more replies)
0 siblings, 6 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-04-01 10:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105122
Bug ID: 105122
Summary: [12 Regression] Testsuite failures since r12-7931 on
i686-linux
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Starting with r12-7931-gb8207ad367174df5f2e2fdf3305c97ed227d8f78 I'm seeing on
i686-linux (or x86_64-linux with
RUNTESTFLAGS='--target_board=unix/-m32/-mno-sse'
testing:
+FAIL: gcc.dg/memcpy-6.c (test for warnings, line 25)
+FAIL: gcc.dg/memcpy-6.c scan-tree-dump-not optimized "memcpy"
+FAIL: gcc.dg/memcpy-6.c scan-tree-dump-not optimized "memmove"
+FAIL: gcc.dg/strlenopt-73.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized "_not_eliminated_"
0
+FAIL: gcc.dg/strlenopt-73.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized "strlen" 0
+FAIL: gcc.dg/strlenopt-80.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized "failure_on_line
\\\\(" 0
+FAIL: gcc.dg/ipa/remref-7.c scan-ipa-dump inline "Removed a reference"
Haven't checked if those tests existed before the
r12-3482-g5f6a6c91d7c592cb49f7c519f289777eac09bb74 commit.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/105122] [12 Regression] Testsuite failures since r12-7931 on i686-linux
2022-04-01 10:29 [Bug target/105122] New: [12 Regression] Testsuite failures since r12-7931 on i686-linux jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-04-01 10:29 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-01 12:08 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-04-01 10:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105122
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
CC| |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/105122] [12 Regression] Testsuite failures since r12-7931 on i686-linux
2022-04-01 10:29 [Bug target/105122] New: [12 Regression] Testsuite failures since r12-7931 on i686-linux jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-01 10:29 ` [Bug target/105122] " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-04-01 12:08 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-01 12:41 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-04-01 12:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105122
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed| |2022-04-01
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Keywords| |missed-optimization
Target| |i?86-*-*
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I will have a look.
+FAIL: gcc.dg/memcpy-6.c (test for warnings, line 25)
+FAIL: gcc.dg/memcpy-6.c scan-tree-dump-not optimized "memcpy"
+FAIL: gcc.dg/memcpy-6.c scan-tree-dump-not optimized "memmove"
fold_copy_8 and fold_move_8 are no longer folded, that's to be expected with
MOVE_MAX and DImode types not being involved directly. The r12-3482 change
would have newly folded those. fold_move_8 is also not expanded inline
by RTL expansion. GCC 11 seems to fold both.
The gcc.dg/ipa/remref-7.c one is probably spurious (it's a new testcase).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/105122] [12 Regression] Testsuite failures since r12-7931 on i686-linux
2022-04-01 10:29 [Bug target/105122] New: [12 Regression] Testsuite failures since r12-7931 on i686-linux jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-01 10:29 ` [Bug target/105122] " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-01 12:08 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-04-01 12:41 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-04 6:41 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-04-01 12:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105122
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Ah, in GCC 11 we had
/* Max number of bytes we can move from memory to memory
in one reasonably fast instruction. */
#define MOVE_MAX 16
while in GCC 12 it is now
/* Max number of bytes we can move from memory to memory in one
reasonably fast instruction, as opposed to MOVE_MAX_PIECES which
is the number of bytes at a time which we can move efficiently.
MOVE_MAX_PIECES defaults to MOVE_MAX. */
#define MOVE_MAX \
((TARGET_AVX512F \
&& (ix86_move_max == PVW_AVX512 \
|| ix86_store_max == PVW_AVX512)) \
? 64 \
: ((TARGET_AVX \
&& (ix86_move_max >= PVW_AVX256 \
|| ix86_store_max >= PVW_AVX256)) \
? 32 \
: ((TARGET_SSE2 \
&& TARGET_SSE_UNALIGNED_LOAD_OPTIMAL \
&& TARGET_SSE_UNALIGNED_STORE_OPTIMAL) \
? 16 : UNITS_PER_WORD)))
and UNITS_PER_WORD is now 4. Not sure if that was a concious decision?
I'm not sure we want to "cheat" here. For memcpy-6.c we have sth like
char a[32];
void fold_copy_8 (void)
{
__builtin_memcpy (a + 3, a, 8);
}
where if we'd try to use 'long long' we'd succeed (since 'a' is properly
aligned). We'd have to use lang_hook.types.types_for_mode to not get
too large types but even with that we'll happily use __int128_t on
i?86 with -mno-sse when copying 16 bytes. The idea of using larger
types than MOVE_MAX was to restrict that to the cases where we do say
__int128_t tem;
memcpy (&tem, a, 16);
and thus the large type is used in the source already (and is > MOVE_MAX).
Similarly for 'double' on i?86 where we'd use DImode. For the sake
of removing abstraction. But the gcc.dg/memcpy-6.c testcase should be
about RTL expansion (with the known lack of handling of memmmove).
Btw, lang_hooks.types.type_for_mode reveals __int128_t via
#if HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT >= 64
if (mode == TYPE_MODE (intTI_type_node))
return unsignedp ? unsigned_intTI_type_node : intTI_type_node;
#endif
even though we have
(gdb) p int_n_enabled_p
$2 = {false}
(gdb) p int_n_data[0]
$3 = {bitsize = 128, m = TImode}
of course __int128_t != unsigned __attribute__((mode(TI))), but ...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/105122] [12 Regression] Testsuite failures since r12-7931 on i686-linux
2022-04-01 10:29 [Bug target/105122] New: [12 Regression] Testsuite failures since r12-7931 on i686-linux jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2022-04-01 12:41 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-04-04 6:41 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-06 6:15 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-06 6:15 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-04-04 6:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105122
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
PASS: gcc.dg/strlenopt-73.c (test for excess errors)
gcc.dg/strlenopt-73.c: pattern found 4 times
FAIL: gcc.dg/strlenopt-73.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized "strlen" 0
gcc.dg/strlenopt-73.c: pattern found 6 times
FAIL: gcc.dg/strlenopt-73.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized "_not_eliminated_" 0
#if defined(__i386__) || defined(__x86_64__) || defined(__aarch64__) \
|| defined(__s390__) || defined(__powerpc64__)
/* The following tests assume GCC transforms the memcpy calls into
long long assignments which it does only on targets that define
the MOVE_MAX macro to 8 or higher. Enable on a set of targets
known to do that. */
that's no longer true for i?86 w/o SSE (and now memcpy folding honors that).
I'll adjust this testcase.
PASS: gcc.dg/strlenopt-80.c (test for excess errors)
gcc.dg/strlenopt-80.c: pattern found 5 times
FAIL: gcc.dg/strlenopt-80.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized "failure_on_line
\\(" 0
similar, the testcase says
The optimization is only implemented for MEM_REF stores and other
targets than those below may not transform the memcpy call into
such a store.
{ dg-do compile { target { { aarch64*-*-* i?86-*-* x86_64-*-* } || { {
powerpc*-*-* } && lp64 } } } }
one way to fix this testcase would be to explicitely enable SSE for i?86-*-*.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/105122] [12 Regression] Testsuite failures since r12-7931 on i686-linux
2022-04-01 10:29 [Bug target/105122] New: [12 Regression] Testsuite failures since r12-7931 on i686-linux jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2022-04-04 6:41 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-04-06 6:15 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-06 6:15 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-04-06 6:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105122
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener <rguenth@gcc.gnu.org>:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e2a818641ba5d07ebe2c241906896c4886910d18
commit r12-8011-ge2a818641ba5d07ebe2c241906896c4886910d18
Author: Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>
Date: Mon Apr 4 08:41:59 2022 +0200
testsuite/105122 - adjust testcases after memcpy folding changes
After r12-7931 we again honor MOVE_MAX when folding memcpy to
a load/store pair. On i?86-*-* without SSE this now exposes the
change done in r12-2666-g29f0e955c97da0 which adjusts MOVE_MAX
from 16 to 4 on those targets. This makes adjusting testcases
necessary that assume that we transform memcpy to load/store pairs
on GIMPLE for sizes larger or equal to 8.
2022-04-04 Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>
PR testsuite/105122
* gcc.dg/memcpy-6.c: Adjust.
* gcc.dg/strlenopt-73.c: Likewise.
* gcc.dg/strlenopt-80.c: Likewise.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/105122] [12 Regression] Testsuite failures since r12-7931 on i686-linux
2022-04-01 10:29 [Bug target/105122] New: [12 Regression] Testsuite failures since r12-7931 on i686-linux jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2022-04-06 6:15 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-04-06 6:15 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-04-06 6:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105122
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-04-06 6:15 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2022-04-01 10:29 [Bug target/105122] New: [12 Regression] Testsuite failures since r12-7931 on i686-linux jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-01 10:29 ` [Bug target/105122] " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-01 12:08 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-01 12:41 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-04 6:41 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-06 6:15 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-06 6:15 ` 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).