[Bug testsuite/105349] New: [12 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/bswap-brw.c fails after r12-8221

[Bug testsuite/105349] New: [12 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/bswap-brw.c fails after r12-8221

[seurer at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105349

            Bug ID: 105349
           Summary: [12 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/bswap-brw.c fails
                    after r12-8221
           Product: gcc
           Version: 12.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: testsuite
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
  Target Milestone: ---

g:26fa464f42622c60d6929720dd37143a21054ede, r12-8221-g26fa464f42622c
make  -k check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=unix'{-m32,-m64}'
powerpc.exp=gcc.target/powerpc/bswap-brw.c"
FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/bswap-brw.c scan-assembler \\mxxbrw\\M


commit 26fa464f42622c60d6929720dd37143a21054ede
Author: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
Date:   Sun Jan 2 14:08:35 2022 +0000

    rs6000: Disparage lfiwzx and similar


Assembler output changed a bit on BE for this test case.  Fails on power power
7 and 8 BE.

[Bug testsuite/105349] [12 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/bswap-brw.c fails after r12-8221

[segher at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105349

--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool <segher at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I actually had tested that:

$ make check-gcc-c
RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=unix'{-m64,-m32,-m32/-mpowerpc64}{-mcpu=power7,-mcpu=power8,-mcpu=power9,-mcpu=power10}'
powerpc.exp=bswap-br*"

                === gcc Summary ===

# of expected passes            17
# of expected failures          1
# of unsupported tests          29

This is on powerpc64-linux.  So what is different on your build, and what is
that output change?

[Bug testsuite/105349] [12 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/bswap-brw.c fails after r12-8221

[segher at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105349

--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool <segher at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Oh, or you didn't see the next commit?

[Bug testsuite/105349] [12 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/bswap-brw.c fails after r12-8221

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105349

Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|---                         |12.0

[Bug testsuite/105349] [12 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/bswap-brw.c fails after r12-8221

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105349

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2022-April/760251.html
certainly shows the
FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/bswap-brw.c scan-assembler \\mxxbrw\\M
even when it is r12-8242 .
--with-cpu=power8 powerpc64-linux-gnu

[Bug testsuite/105349] [12 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/bswap-brw.c fails after r12-8221

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105349

--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
With a x86_64-linux -> powerpc64-linux cross, I can see with -mcpu=power10 -m32
--- bswap-brw.s1        2022-04-25 18:32:35.108799457 +0200
+++ bswap-brw.s2        2022-04-25 18:32:38.664750135 +0200
@@ -28,10 +28,11 @@ bswap_int_dbl:
         # 0
  # 0 "" 2
 #NO_APP
-       xxbrw 0,0
+       mfvsrwz 9,0
+       brw 9,9
+       stw 9,8(1)
        addi 9,1,8
-       xxextractuw 1,0,4
-       stfiwx 0,0,9
+       lfiwzx 1,0,9
        addi 1,1,16
        .cfi_def_cfa_offset 0
        fcfid 1,1
@@ -39,6 +40,6 @@ bswap_int_dbl:
        .cfi_endproc
 .LFE1:
        .size   bswap_int_dbl,.-bswap_int_dbl
-       .ident  "GCC: (GNU) 12.0.1 20220310 (experimental)"
+       .ident  "GCC: (GNU) 12.0.1 20220425 (experimental)"
        .gnu_attribute 4, 1
        .section        .note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits

difference, with -m64 xxbrw is still there even with latest trunk.

[Bug testsuite/105349] [12 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/bswap-brw.c fails after r12-8221

[segher at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105349

--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool <segher at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
And that is what the  {xfail {has_arch_pwr10 && {! has_arch_ppc64}}}
is for.  Does that not work for you?  Why doesn't it, it works fine here?

It would be nice if this unimportant edge case was costed better as well of
course, but it wasn't worth blocking this important regression fix on it.

[Bug testsuite/105349] [12 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/bswap-brw.c fails after r12-8221

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105349

--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Somehow that doesn't really work, in the log I see that has_arch_pwr10 is
tested but yields it is not on:
/usr/src/gcc/objp16/gcc/xgcc -B/usr/src/gcc/objp16/gcc/ arch_pwr101791933.c 
-m32   -fdiagnostics-plain-output  -S -o arch_pwr101791933.s    (timeout = 300)
spawn -ignore SIGHUP /usr/src/gcc/objp16/gcc/xgcc -B/usr/src/gcc/objp16/gcc/
arch_pwr101791933.c -m32 -fdiagnostics-plain-output -S -o arch_pwr101791933.s
arch_pwr101791933.c:3:18: error: #error does not have power10 support.
compiler exited with status 1
- the -mdejagnu-cpu=power10 option from the command line isn't clearly passed
to the effective target test compilation.
If I do:
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/bswap-brw.c.jj     2022-04-22
13:36:56.136961022 +0200
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/bswap-brw.c        2022-04-25
19:16:46.528029452 +0200
@@ -17,6 +17,6 @@ bswap_int_dbl (unsigned int a)
   /* Force the value to be loaded into a vector register.  */
   __asm__ (" # %x0" : "+wa" (b));

-  /* { dg-final { scan-assembler {\mxxbrw\M} {xfail {has_arch_pwr10 && {!
has_arch_ppc64}}} } } */
+  /* { dg-final { scan-assembler {\mxxbrw\M} {xfail { ! { has_arch_ppc64 } } }
} } */
   return (double) __builtin_bswap32 (b);
 }

then the test passes both
make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS='--target_board=unix\{-m32,-m64\}
powerpc.exp=bswap-brw.c'
(in x86_64-linux -> powerpc64-linux cross).
What is the point of has_arch_pwr10 test in there?  When -mdejagnu-cpu=power10
is used, then it is power10 when it is being compiled always, no?

[Bug testsuite/105349] [12 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/bswap-brw.c fails after r12-8221

[segher at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105349

--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool <segher at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The test generates the expected code for all other cpus.

[Bug testsuite/105349] [12 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/bswap-brw.c fails after r12-8221

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105349

--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
As it uses -mdejagnu-cpu=power10, it only tests power10 code generation,
nothing else.

[Bug testsuite/105349] [12 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/bswap-brw.c fails after r12-8221

[segher at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105349

--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool <segher at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Ah, lol.  Yes.  But please don't change this yet, it should work thew way it
is now, this should be fixed.  Do you see what makes the _ARCH_PWR10 test
fail on your system?

[Bug testsuite/105349] [12 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/bswap-brw.c fails after r12-8221

[segher at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105349

--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool <segher at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The feature test output you show was run without the dg-options...  Something
is seriously wrong if that is the one that was used!

[Bug testsuite/105349] [12 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/bswap-brw.c fails after r12-8221

[seurer at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105349

--- Comment #11 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It is still failing with latest trunk:

spawn -ignore SIGHUP /home/seurer/gcc/git/build/gcc-test/gcc/xgcc
-B/home/seurer/gcc/git/build/gcc-test/gcc/
/home/seurer/gcc/git/gcc-test/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/bswap-brw.c -m32
-fdiagnostics-plain-output -O2 -mdejagnu-cpu=power10 -ffat-lto-objects
-fno-ident -S -o bswap-brw.s^M
FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/bswap-brw.c scan-assembler \\mxxbrw\\M


g:235f88dbc3494c49e0f361a5a3f78491f72ff47c, r12-8247-g235f88dbc3494c 


seurer@makalu-lp1:~/gcc/git/build/gcc-test$ diff -c bswap-brw.s.r12-8220
bswap-brw.s.r12-8221
*** bswap-brw.s.r12-8220        Mon Apr 25 12:22:57 2022
--- bswap-brw.s.r12-8221        Mon Apr 25 12:29:35 2022
***************
*** 28,37 ****
         # 0
   # 0 "" 2
  #NO_APP
!       xxbrw 0,0
        addi 9,1,8
!       xxextractuw 1,0,4
!       stfiwx 0,0,9
        addi 1,1,16
        .cfi_def_cfa_offset 0
        fcfid 1,1
--- 28,38 ----
         # 0
   # 0 "" 2
  #NO_APP
!       mfvsrwz 9,0
!       brw 9,9
!       stw 9,8(1)
        addi 9,1,8
!       lfiwzx 1,0,9
        addi 1,1,16
        .cfi_def_cfa_offset 0
        fcfid 1,1

[Bug testsuite/105349] [12 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/bswap-brw.c fails after r12-8221

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105349

--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I said that above, -mdejagnu-cpu=power10 isn't passed to the effective target
snippet compilation, so it doesn't test whether the test with
-mdejagnu-cpu=power10 will be power10, but rather tests whether the compiler is
configured to default to -mcpu=power10 or perhaps whether this is
--target_board=unix/-mcpu=power10 testing:

Executing on host: /usr/src/gcc/objp16/gcc/xgcc -B/usr/src/gcc/objp16/gcc/ 
-m32   -fdiagnostics-plain-output  -mcpu=power10 -c -o power10_ok1793558.o
power10_ok1793558.c    (timeout
 = 300)
spawn -ignore SIGHUP /usr/src/gcc/objp16/gcc/xgcc -B/usr/src/gcc/objp16/gcc/
-m32 -fdiagnostics-plain-output -mcpu=power10 -c -o power10_ok1793558.o
power10_ok1793558.c
Executing on host: /usr/src/gcc/objp16/gcc/xgcc -B/usr/src/gcc/objp16/gcc/
/usr/src/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/bswap-brw.c  -m32  
-fdiagnostics-plain-output  -O2 -mdejagnu
-cpu=power10 -ffat-lto-objects -fno-ident -S -o bswap-brw.s    (timeout = 300)
spawn -ignore SIGHUP /usr/src/gcc/objp16/gcc/xgcc -B/usr/src/gcc/objp16/gcc/
/usr/src/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/bswap-brw.c -m32
-fdiagnostics-plain-output -O2 -mdejagnu-c
pu=power10 -ffat-lto-objects -fno-ident -S -o bswap-brw.s
Executing on host: /usr/src/gcc/objp16/gcc/xgcc -B/usr/src/gcc/objp16/gcc/
exceptions_enabled1793558.cc  -m32   -fdiagnostics-plain-output  -S -o
exceptions_enabled1793558.s    (time
out = 300)
spawn -ignore SIGHUP /usr/src/gcc/objp16/gcc/xgcc -B/usr/src/gcc/objp16/gcc/
exceptions_enabled1793558.cc -m32 -fdiagnostics-plain-output -S -o
exceptions_enabled1793558.s
PASS: gcc.target/powerpc/bswap-brw.c (test for excess errors)
PASS: gcc.target/powerpc/bswap-brw.c scan-assembler \\mbrw\\M
Executing on host: /usr/src/gcc/objp16/gcc/xgcc -B/usr/src/gcc/objp16/gcc/
arch_pwr101793558.c  -m32   -fdiagnostics-plain-output  -S -o
arch_pwr101793558.s    (timeout = 300)
spawn -ignore SIGHUP /usr/src/gcc/objp16/gcc/xgcc -B/usr/src/gcc/objp16/gcc/
arch_pwr101793558.c -m32 -fdiagnostics-plain-output -S -o arch_pwr101793558.s
arch_pwr101793558.c:3:18: error: #error does not have power10 support.
compiler exited with status 1
FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/bswap-brw.c scan-assembler \\mxxbrw\\M

[Bug testsuite/105349] [12 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/bswap-brw.c fails after r12-8221

[segher at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105349

--- Comment #13 from Segher Boessenkool <segher at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Ah, it needs check_no_compiler_messages_nocache in these tests.  Patch
attached.
Could you please test with it?

[Bug testsuite/105349] [12 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/bswap-brw.c fails after r12-8221

[segher at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105349

Segher Boessenkool <segher at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org      |segher at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #14 from Segher Boessenkool <segher at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 52870
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52870&action=edit
proposed patch

[Bug testsuite/105349] [12 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/bswap-brw.c fails after r12-8221

[segher at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105349

Segher Boessenkool <segher at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Attachment #52870|0                           |1
        is obsolete|                            |

--- Comment #15 from Segher Boessenkool <segher at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 52871
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52871&action=edit
proposed patch

[Bug testsuite/105349] [12 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/bswap-brw.c fails after r12-8221

[segher at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105349

Segher Boessenkool <segher at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Attachment #52871|0                           |1
        is obsolete|                            |

--- Comment #16 from Segher Boessenkool <segher at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 52877
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52877&action=edit
proposed patch

Bah.  I did everything wrong you can do wrong here, it seems :-/

[Bug testsuite/105349] [12 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/bswap-brw.c fails after r12-8221

[cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105349

--- Comment #17 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Segher Boessenkool <segher@gcc.gnu.org>:

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ad56a60f58c1ed662deaf60d5736c332ec2caabb

commit r12-8265-gad56a60f58c1ed662deaf60d5736c332ec2caabb
Author: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
Date:   Tue Apr 26 11:26:09 2022 +0000

    rs6000: Make the has_arch target selectors actually work

    2022-04-26  Segher Boessenkoool  <segher@kernel.crashing.org>

    gcc/testsuite/
            PR target/105349
            * lib/target-supports.exp (check_effective_target_has_arch_pwr5):
Use
            the specified dg-options.
            (check_effective_target_has_arch_pwr6): Ditto.
            (check_effective_target_has_arch_pwr7): Ditto.
            (check_effective_target_has_arch_pwr8): Ditto.
            (check_effective_target_has_arch_pwr9): Ditto.
            (check_effective_target_has_arch_pwr10): Ditto.
            (check_effective_target_has_arch_ppc64): Ditto.

[Bug testsuite/105349] [12 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/bswap-brw.c fails after r12-8221

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105349

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

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

--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
.