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 83BE83858414; Mon,  8 May 2023 19:52:23 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 83BE83858414
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1683575543;
	bh=c150S1FcsRGEIzcFw1aCG/M7OVwt7k6ovLpqFWW4lrM=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=FJ5xNPsVaHo55KLZdfBgJtT1bGUa1WmXBXR0vt8Qb61TNuqHVjy8ASHVdvjqgpRLW
	 104aTO/7T62PCC0v0uRS/lb5LTH1NM3H/CWzKjMH/DQ3EDFdWCGsC0NXqwEl/BpsNf
	 07qMBjnkzxx4N4Wh51FgxRjE4Wv8yUj02FsSlbxA=
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/109777] [14 regression] Compare-debug failure after
 recent changes
Date: Mon, 08 May 2023 19:52:23 +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: compare-debug-failure
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P4
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-109777-4-Anb2V02Oxk@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-109777-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-109777-4@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=3D109777

--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #4)
> If it's inside the bfin bundling code, let's just mark it as a p4 and we =
can
> chase it down whenever it's convenient.   My primary motivation is to cat=
ch
> generic issues.  A target specific issue on a barely used target just isn=
't
> that interesting IMHO.

Thanks, it actaully might be the scheduler which is introducing the differe=
nce
such that bfin bundling is different.

I just noticed the modes of the two instructions:

(insn:SI # # # 6 (set (reg:SI 3 R3 [177])
        (ashift:SI (reg:SI 4 R4 [orig:87 x$0 ] [87])
            (const_int 1 [0x1]))) "t.c":44:47# {*ashlsi3_insn}
     (nil))

vs with -g:
(insn:TI # # # 6 (set (reg:SI 3 R3 [177])
        (ashift:SI (reg:SI 4 R4 [orig:87 x$0 ] [87])
            (const_int 1 [0x1]))) "t.c":44:47# {*ashlsi3_insn}
     (nil))

---
I think this is caused by having the debug insn afterwards:
(debug_insn # # # 6 (var_location:SI D#14 (ior:SI (reg:SI 3 R3 [177])
        (const_int 31 [0x1f])))#
     (nil))

which might be saying it is scheduled with the above one while without -g, =
it
is not schedule with another instruction; hence the SImode.=