From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 5A4173854551; Fri, 18 Nov 2022 19:37:31 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 5A4173854551 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1668800251; bh=8wKuTtVW8EeSm6pix5iGMmni1c2sZwOglfTzZ50J37k=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=vXI9NvvlZUAw5cT06PxCCA4p/UmVLuE/dDPOLXYZLYkWP4rugpAs7zFQXcW8IKOZS +sxc1vMRf3NWMaSS4S9M6+xGPI3zCYDB1QLnCSZyXHKhL4RWKIUAMR/+6rOxXa8Isn NVo9inxxoDf1GO0cczLHcGI6rfBA90M/jW4NoAwk= From: "wwwhhhyyy333 at gmail dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/107692] [13 regression] r13-3950-g071e428c24ee8c breaks many test cases Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2022 19:37:29 +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: 13.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: testsuite-fail X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: wwwhhhyyy333 at gmail dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 13.0 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 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=3D107692 --- Comment #9 from Hongyu Wang --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #8) > (In reply to Jiu Fu Guo from comment #5) > > > -munroll-only-small-loops does not turn on or off -funroll-loops, and= it > > > should not, so that it does what it says, if nothing else. > >=20 > > Yes, and -funroll-loops would win over -munroll-only-small-loops >=20 > -funroll-loops is the only thing that enables loop unrolling. > -munroll-only-small-loops, like the name says, says to only unroll small > loops, > and no others. It is not something at the same level as -funroll-loops, = that > would be insanity: other code likes to see if the user requested loops to= be > unrolled as well! I can understand the logic, my initial patch https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-October/604345.html is somet= hing similar to rs6000 and x86 only. The difference is, -mno-unroll-only-small-loops -O2 would cause rtl-loop-un= roll takeing effect, and cunroll will also work if we follow the rs6000 change. = We do not really want these so the patch becomes ugly as said :( I think the intension of -munroll-only-small-loops is to just adjust rtl-loop-unrolling and do not touch middle-end unroll/cunroll. But I think = your point is also reasonable. Maybe we can split the flag_unroll_loops to tree = and rtl seperately? Anyway I will propose a patch and re-discuss with maintainers later. Thanks= !=