[Bug testsuite/109776] New: [14 Regression] pr81192 fails on some targets after recent propagator changes

[Bug testsuite/109776] New: [14 Regression] pr81192 fails on some targets after recent propagator changes

[law at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109776

            Bug ID: 109776
           Summary: [14 Regression] pr81192 fails on some targets after
                    recent propagator changes
           Product: gcc
           Version: 14.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: testsuite
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: law at gcc dot gnu.org
  Target Milestone: ---

pr81192 is failing on some targets (xstormy16-elf for example) after this
change:

commit 21e2ef2dc25de318de29ec32d5390350c6717c6a
Author: Andrew Pinski <apinski@marvell.com>
Date:   Tue May 2 00:10:46 2023 -0700

    Move substitute_and_fold over to use simple_dce_from_worklist

    While looking into a different issue, I noticed that it
    would take until the second forwprop pass to do some
    forward proping and it was because the ssa name was
    used more than once but the second statement was
    "dead" and we don't remove that until much later.

    So this uses simple_dce_from_worklist instead of manually
    removing of the known unused statements instead.
    Propagate engine does not do a cleanupcfg afterwards either but manually
    cleans up possible EH edges so simple_dce_from_worklist
    needs to communicate that back to the propagate engine.

    Some testcases needed to be updated/changed even because of better
optimization.
    gcc.dg/pr81192.c even had to be changed to be using the gimple FE so it
would
    be less fragile in the future too.
    gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr98737-1.c was failing because __atomic_fetch_ was being
matched
    but in those cases, the result was not being used so both __atomic_fetch_
and
    __atomic_x_and_fetch_ are valid choices and would not make a code
generation difference.
    evrp7.c, evrp8.c, vrp35.c, vrp36.c: just needed a slightly change as the
removal message
    is different slightly.
    kernels-alias-8.c: ccp1 is able to remove an unused load which causes
ealias to have
    one less load to analysis so update the expected scan #.

    OK? Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-linux-gnu with no regressions.

    gcc/ChangeLog:

            PR tree-optimization/109691
            * tree-ssa-dce.cc (simple_dce_from_worklist): Add need_eh_cleanup
            argument.
            If the removed statement can throw, have need_eh_cleanup
            include the bb of that statement.
            * tree-ssa-dce.h (simple_dce_from_worklist): Update declaration.
            * tree-ssa-propagate.cc (struct prop_stats_d): Remove
            num_dce.
            (substitute_and_fold_dom_walker::substitute_and_fold_dom_walker):
            Initialize dceworklist instead of stmts_to_remove.
            (substitute_and_fold_dom_walker::~substitute_and_fold_dom_walker):
            Destore dceworklist instead of stmts_to_remove.
            (substitute_and_fold_dom_walker::before_dom_children):
            Set dceworklist instead of adding to stmts_to_remove.
            (substitute_and_fold_engine::substitute_and_fold):
            Call simple_dce_from_worklist instead of poping
            from the list.
            Don't update the stat on removal statements.

[ ... ]

The compiler is complaining with this message:

/home/jlaw/test/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr81192.c: In function 'fn2':^M
/home/jlaw/test/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr81192.c:50:1: error: type mismatch
in binary expression^M
long int^M
^M
long int^M
^M
int^M
^M
iftmp2_8_14 = j_6(D) + 1;^M
/home/jlaw/test/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr81192.c:50:1: error: mismatching
comparison operand types^M
long int^M
int^M
if (c0_1_13 != 0)^M
compiler exited with status 1


I suspect the testsuite needs further twiddling to work on 16bit int targets.

[Bug testsuite/109776] [14 Regression] pr81192 fails on some targets after recent propagator changes

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109776

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|                            |testsuite-fail

--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
>I suspect the testsuite needs further twiddling to work on 16bit int targets.

Actually it looks like a gimple front-end issue really.
iftmp2_8 and j and c0_1 are all declared as int types rather than long int. So
the testcase seems correct.

Do other gcc.dg/gimplefe-* testcase fail on this target too?

[Bug testsuite/109776] [14 Regression] pr81192 fails on some targets after recent propagator changes

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109776

--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
For an example gcc.dg/gimplefe-10.c ?

[Bug testsuite/109776] [14 Regression] pr81192 fails on some targets after recent propagator changes

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109776

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2023-05-08
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
   Target Milestone|---                         |14.0

--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The issue is xstormy has a 16bit int type and both 1 and 0 are getting assigned
'int'.

Since you #define int you need to wrap all literals with _Literal (int) ...
and of course 2147483647 won't fit (thus dg-require-effective-target
int32plus?)

[Bug testsuite/109776] [14 Regression] pr81192 fails on some targets after recent propagator changes

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109776

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
           Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org      |pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> The issue is xstormy has a 16bit int type and both 1 and 0 are getting
> assigned
> 'int'.
> 
> Since you #define int you need to wrap all literals with _Literal (int) ...
> and of course 2147483647 won't fit (thus dg-require-effective-target
> int32plus?)

Oh I missed the define for some reason when I was looking into the tests today.
Let me try to fix it for 16bit int targets.

[Bug testsuite/109776] [14 Regression] pr81192 fails on some targets after recent propagator changes

[cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109776

--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gcc.gnu.org>:

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5d85b5d649fff675ff00adcc99371bccf4ef5944

commit r14-587-g5d85b5d649fff675ff00adcc99371bccf4ef5944
Author: Andrew Pinski <apinski@marvell.com>
Date:   Mon May 8 10:58:06 2023 -0700

    Fix pr81192.c for int16 targets

    I had missed when converting this
    testcase to Gimple that there was a define
    for int/unsigned type specifically to get
    an INT32 type. This means when using a
    literal integer constant you need to use the
    `_Literal (type)` to form the types correctly on the
    constants.

    This fixes the issue and has been both tested on
    xstormy16-elf and x86_64-linux-gnu.

    Committed as obvious.

    gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:

            PR testsuite/109776
            * gcc.dg/pr81192.c: Fix integer constants for int16 targets.

[Bug testsuite/109776] [14 Regression] pr81192 fails on some targets after recent propagator changes

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109776

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

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

--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed. I ran `make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="dg.exp=pr81192.c"` to make sure the
testcase now works too.

[Bug testsuite/109776] [14 Regression] pr81192 fails on some targets after recent propagator changes

[law at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109776

--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law <law at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Thanks.  That took care of the xstormy16 issues.