From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 27894385417B; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 16:31:07 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 27894385417B DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1666369867; bh=wxhiJt0YUK0fzUWOpux370Te5DdGmJGmQAh6wtXhR0E=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=D20OIEU46/+YPVKboNay007wyAYml4IXfDyuAccimh8/Gq5RQOmjsTylNDovwRkGt KvnJx8EKXPH9pr+X/puUrUcGvxzPg43/1CTqu12QvtwroaxPC58YQEmfoEvMJP+GOS N4szU+nTCxLqlR0BTAfWIDvWvuZKJ1FM4p8DBXxM= From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/106818] riscv produces bad low_sum while doing expansion of strict aligned stores/load Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 16:31:05 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: target X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cf_reconfirmed_on bug_status short_desc component everconfirmed keywords Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D106818 Andrew Pinski changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Last reconfirmed| |2022-10-21 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Summary|code is genereated |riscv produces bad low_sum |differently with or without |while doing expansion of |'extern' |strict aligned stores/load Component|middle-end |target Ever confirmed|0 |1 Keywords|missed-optimization |wrong-code --- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski --- So on aarch64 with -O3 -mstrict-align we produce: adrp x1, array add x0, x1, :lo12:array mov w2, 10 strb w2, [x1, #:lo12:array] strb wzr, [x0, 1] strb wzr, [x0, 2] strb wzr, [x0, 3] PowerPC has a similar output as aarch64 here too. Which means this is a target issue where low_sum is being combined with the= add when it should not be. Confirmed for riscv. It happens at expand time: (insn 15 14 16 (set (mem/c:QI (lo_sum:DI (reg:DI 72) (symbol_ref:DI ("array") [flags 0xc4] )) [1 MEM[(struct sss_t *)&array].i+0 S1 A8]) (reg:QI 78)) "/app/example.cpp":10:10 -1 (nil)) (insn 16 15 17 (set (reg:DI 80) (zero_extend:DI (mem/c:QI (lo_sum:DI (reg:DI 72) (const:DI (plus:DI (symbol_ref:DI ("array") [flags 0xc4= ]=20 ) (const_int 1 [0x1])))) [1 MEM[(struct sss_t *)&array].i+1 S1 A8]))) "/app/example.cpp":10:10 -1 (nil)) Note the alignment is causing the difference in doing the expansion or one store but then the wrong code is due to the backend expansion of the address incorrectly. ARM64 (and powerpc) expansion produces: (insn 18 17 19 (set (reg:QI 101) (mem/c:QI (plus:DI (reg/f:DI 92) (const_int 1 [0x1])) [1 MEM[(struct sss_t *)&array].i+1 S1 A8])) "/app/example.cpp":10:10 -1 (nil)) Notice the 92 rather than the low_sum part.=