From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id A0D373858C74; Thu, 27 Apr 2023 01:36:16 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org A0D373858C74
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1682559376;
	bh=8EzWYiA1oymqtVZTkjOLA3GIzsR/A5nna7z5DCuNcbE=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=w0TKLpqCkLrmkvFbHlBMVxKQRbd7LArvqATOreNDu2oPODti/aOP9URuo0mvlsHVP
	 YAjpcHel4JnJsTYLvkxDEiX8/6ON8THkuD6/9R2IFZHF5Gqx8yacdYIKHhMTpVENdP
	 bOq+wqzuQvvLAlhE4NOGLbWZowFSxKVKZWP/Z5VA=
From: "crazylht at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/109610] [14 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/dform-3.c
 fails after r14-172-g0368d169492017
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2023 01:36:15 +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: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: testsuite-fail
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: crazylht at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-109610-4-L1rWua76Ph@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-109610-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-109610-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
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: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D109610

--- Comment #7 from Hongtao.liu <crazylht at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to rsandifo@gcc.gnu.org from comment #6)
> Please don't do the peephole thing!  This seems like a
> target-independent problem.
>=20
> The costs for r117 look odd.  Why is the cost of GENERAL_REGS so high
> when the use (before the introduction of insn 13) explicitly requires
> GENERAL_REGS?
>=20
> Given those costs, the behaviour after the patch looks correct
> (on the basis of the information its working with, I mean,
> even though it's not the desired effect).

(define_insn "vsx_mov<mode>_64bit"
  [(set (match_operand:VSX_M 0 "nonimmediate_operand"
               "=3DZwO,      wa,        wa,        r,         we,        ?w=
Q,
                ?&r,       ??r,       ??Y,       <??r>,     wa,        v,
                wa,        wa,
                ?wa,       v,         <??r>,     wZ,        v")

        (match_operand:VSX_M 1 "input_operand"=20
               "wa,        ZwO,       wa,        we,        r,         r,
                wQ,        Y,         r,         r,         wE,        jwM,
                eQ,        eP,
                ?jwM,      W,         <nW>,      v,         wZ"))]

  "TARGET_POWERPC64 && VECTOR_MEM_VSX_P (<MODE>mode)
   && (register_operand (operands[0], <MODE>mode)=20
       || register_operand (operands[1], <MODE>mode))"
{
  return rs6000_output_move_128bit (operands);
}

Because the backend pattern explicitly disparage the alternative (<??r>, r),
(??r, Y) which moves from GENERAL_REGS/MEM to GENERAL_REGS. And in cost
calculation, RA will add extra 2 for each '?', that's why cost of GENERAL_R=
EGS
is so high. If manually remove ?? from ??r, then the cost for GENERAL_REGS =
will
become 0, then RA can allocate r117 as GENERAL_REGS, the extra move can be
eliminated by pass_reload.=20=20

----------cost after removing ?? from ??r--------------
a2(r117,l0) costs: BASE_REGS:0,0 GENERAL_REGS:0,0 FLOAT_REGS:0,0
ALTIVEC_REGS:0,0 VSX_REGS:0,0 GEN_OR_FLOAT_REGS:12000,12000
GEN_OR_VSX_REGS:12000,12000 MEM:0,0
-----------end-----------------------

So it looks like an target dependent issue, the backend dislike allocating
GENERAL_REGS for V2DFmode move, but inline asm explicitly want it to be in
GENERAL_REGS.=