public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug target/112103] New: [14 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/rlwinm-0.c fails after r14-4941-gd1bb9569d70304 @ 2023-10-26 16:44 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-10-26 21:34 ` [Bug target/112103] " roger at nextmovesoftware dot com ` (11 more replies) 0 siblings, 12 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: seurer at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-10-26 16:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112103 Bug ID: 112103 Summary: [14 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/rlwinm-0.c fails after r14-4941-gd1bb9569d70304 Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: seurer at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- g:d1bb9569d7030490fe7bb35af432f934560d689d, r14-4941-gd1bb9569d70304 make -k check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="powerpc.exp=gcc.target/powerpc/rlwinm-0.c" FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/rlwinm-0.c scan-assembler-times (?n)^\\s+rldicl 3081 FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/rlwinm-0.c scan-assembler-times (?n)^\\s+rlwinm 3093 # of expected passes 5 # of unexpected failures 2 These changes in code output are OK as neither the original rlwinm nor the rldicl actually have any effect. So in the short term the test case just needs to update its instruction counts. We are tracking something to get rid of the extraneous ops later. seurer@ltcden2-lp1:~/gcc/git/build/gcc-test$ diff rlwinm-0.s.r14-4940 rlwinm-0.s.r14-4941 5371c5371 < rlwinm 3,3,0,0xffff --- > rldicl 3,3,0,32 6089c6089 < rlwinm 3,3,0,0xff --- > rldicl 3,3,0,32 8959c8959 < rlwinm 3,3,0,0xffff --- > rldicl 3,3,0,32 9677c9677 < rlwinm 3,3,0,0xff --- > rldicl 3,3,0,32 12546c12546 < rlwinm 3,3,0,0xffff --- > rldicl 3,3,0,32 13264c13264 < rlwinm 3,3,0,0xff --- > rldicl 3,3,0,32 16131c16131 < rlwinm 3,3,0,0xffff --- > rldicl 3,3,0,32 19715c19715 < rlwinm 3,3,0,0xffff --- > rldicl 3,3,0,32 23298c23298 < rlwinm 3,3,0,0xffff --- > rldicl 3,3,0,32 commit d1bb9569d7030490fe7bb35af432f934560d689d (HEAD) Author: Roger Sayle <roger@nextmovesoftware.com> Date: Thu Oct 26 10:06:59 2023 +0100 PR 91865: Avoid ZERO_EXTEND of ZERO_EXTEND in make_compound_operation. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/112103] [14 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/rlwinm-0.c fails after r14-4941-gd1bb9569d70304 2023-10-26 16:44 [Bug target/112103] New: [14 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/rlwinm-0.c fails after r14-4941-gd1bb9569d70304 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-10-26 21:34 ` roger at nextmovesoftware dot com 2023-10-27 13:03 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ` (10 subsequent siblings) 11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: roger at nextmovesoftware dot com @ 2023-10-26 21:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112103 Roger Sayle <roger at nextmovesoftware dot com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW CC| |roger at nextmovesoftware dot com Last reconfirmed| |2023-10-26 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/112103] [14 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/rlwinm-0.c fails after r14-4941-gd1bb9569d70304 2023-10-26 16:44 [Bug target/112103] New: [14 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/rlwinm-0.c fails after r14-4941-gd1bb9569d70304 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-10-26 21:34 ` [Bug target/112103] " roger at nextmovesoftware dot com @ 2023-10-27 13:03 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-11-09 18:35 ` segher at gcc dot gnu.org ` (9 subsequent siblings) 11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-10-27 13:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112103 Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Target Milestone|--- |14.0 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/112103] [14 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/rlwinm-0.c fails after r14-4941-gd1bb9569d70304 2023-10-26 16:44 [Bug target/112103] New: [14 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/rlwinm-0.c fails after r14-4941-gd1bb9569d70304 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-10-26 21:34 ` [Bug target/112103] " roger at nextmovesoftware dot com 2023-10-27 13:03 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-11-09 18:35 ` segher at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-11-09 18:37 ` segher at gcc dot gnu.org ` (8 subsequent siblings) 11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: segher at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-11-09 18:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112103 --- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool <segher at gcc dot gnu.org> --- Those are: $ diff -up rlwinm-0.s{.12,} --- rlwinm-0.s.12 2023-11-09 18:28:49.362639203 +0000 +++ rlwinm-0.s 2023-11-09 18:30:46.422896735 +0000 @@ -6747,7 +6747,7 @@ f_1_16_31: .LFB345: .cfi_startproc rlwinm 3,3,1,16,31 - rlwinm 3,3,0,0xffff + rldicl 3,3,0,32 blr .long 0 .byte 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 @@ -7645,7 +7645,7 @@ f_1_24_31: .LFB390: .cfi_startproc rlwinm 3,3,1,24,31 - rlwinm 3,3,0,0xff + rldicl 3,3,0,32 blr .long 0 .byte 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 @@ -11235,7 +11235,7 @@ f_2_16_31: .LFB570: .cfi_startproc rlwinm 3,3,2,16,31 - rlwinm 3,3,0,0xffff + rldicl 3,3,0,32 blr .long 0 .byte 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 @@ -12133,7 +12133,7 @@ f_2_24_31: .LFB615: .cfi_startproc rlwinm 3,3,2,24,31 - rlwinm 3,3,0,0xff + rldicl 3,3,0,32 blr .long 0 .byte 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 @@ -15722,7 +15722,7 @@ f_7_16_31: .LFB795: .cfi_startproc rlwinm 3,3,7,16,31 - rlwinm 3,3,0,0xffff + rldicl 3,3,0,32 blr .long 0 .byte 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 @@ -16620,7 +16620,7 @@ f_7_24_31: .LFB840: .cfi_startproc rlwinm 3,3,7,24,31 - rlwinm 3,3,0,0xff + rldicl 3,3,0,32 blr .long 0 .byte 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 @@ -20207,7 +20207,7 @@ f_8_16_31: .LFB1020: .cfi_startproc rlwinm 3,3,8,16,31 - rlwinm 3,3,0,0xffff + rldicl 3,3,0,32 blr .long 0 .byte 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 @@ -24691,7 +24691,7 @@ f_9_16_31: .LFB1245: .cfi_startproc rlwinm 3,3,9,16,31 - rlwinm 3,3,0,0xffff + rldicl 3,3,0,32 blr .long 0 .byte 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 @@ -29174,7 +29174,7 @@ f_15_16_31: .LFB1470: .cfi_startproc rlwinm 3,3,15,16,31 - rlwinm 3,3,0,0xffff + rldicl 3,3,0,32 blr .long 0 .byte 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 @@ -67092,4 +67092,4 @@ f_31_31_31: .cfi_endproc .LFE3375: .size f_31_31_31,.-.L.f_31_31_31 - .ident "GCC: (GNU) 12.0.1 20220406 (experimental)" + .ident "GCC: (GNU) 14.0.0 20231103 (experimental)" ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/112103] [14 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/rlwinm-0.c fails after r14-4941-gd1bb9569d70304 2023-10-26 16:44 [Bug target/112103] New: [14 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/rlwinm-0.c fails after r14-4941-gd1bb9569d70304 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2023-11-09 18:35 ` segher at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-11-09 18:37 ` segher at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-01-15 13:57 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ` (7 subsequent siblings) 11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: segher at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-11-09 18:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112103 --- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool <segher at gcc dot gnu.org> --- In all those cases the code is perfectly fine, but also in all of those cases the code is still suboptimal: the rldicl is just as superfluous as the second rlwinm was! :-) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/112103] [14 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/rlwinm-0.c fails after r14-4941-gd1bb9569d70304 2023-10-26 16:44 [Bug target/112103] New: [14 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/rlwinm-0.c fails after r14-4941-gd1bb9569d70304 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 2023-11-09 18:37 ` segher at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-01-15 13:57 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-01-19 16:48 ` bergner at gcc dot gnu.org ` (6 subsequent siblings) 11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-01-15 13:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112103 Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Priority|P3 |P1 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/112103] [14 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/rlwinm-0.c fails after r14-4941-gd1bb9569d70304 2023-10-26 16:44 [Bug target/112103] New: [14 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/rlwinm-0.c fails after r14-4941-gd1bb9569d70304 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ` (4 preceding siblings ...) 2024-01-15 13:57 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-01-19 16:48 ` bergner at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-02-16 19:01 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ` (5 subsequent siblings) 11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: bergner at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-01-19 16:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112103 --- Comment #3 from Peter Bergner <bergner at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #2) > In all those cases the code is perfectly fine, but also in all of those > cases the > code is still suboptimal: the rldicl is just as superfluous as the second > rlwinm > was! :-) So the superfluous second instruction is not really a regression, correct? All that changed with Roger's patch is we replaced a superfluous rlwinm with a superfluous rldicl, correct? ...which is what caused the testcase to FAIL given it was looking for the old mnemonic and found the new one. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/112103] [14 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/rlwinm-0.c fails after r14-4941-gd1bb9569d70304 2023-10-26 16:44 [Bug target/112103] New: [14 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/rlwinm-0.c fails after r14-4941-gd1bb9569d70304 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ` (5 preceding siblings ...) 2024-01-19 16:48 ` bergner at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-02-16 19:01 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-02-19 21:42 ` bergner at gcc dot gnu.org ` (4 subsequent siblings) 11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-02-16 19:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112103 Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- So, let's just adjust the testcase then? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/112103] [14 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/rlwinm-0.c fails after r14-4941-gd1bb9569d70304 2023-10-26 16:44 [Bug target/112103] New: [14 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/rlwinm-0.c fails after r14-4941-gd1bb9569d70304 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ` (6 preceding siblings ...) 2024-02-16 19:01 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-02-19 21:42 ` bergner at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-02-19 22:24 ` bergner at gcc dot gnu.org ` (3 subsequent siblings) 11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: bergner at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-02-19 21:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112103 --- Comment #5 from Peter Bergner <bergner at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4) > So, let's just adjust the testcase then? We still want to remove the superfluous instruction, but that should be covered in a separate bug. So yeah, I think this just needs a testsuite update. Should we also drop the priority down too? A P1 seems a little high for a simple test case update. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/112103] [14 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/rlwinm-0.c fails after r14-4941-gd1bb9569d70304 2023-10-26 16:44 [Bug target/112103] New: [14 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/rlwinm-0.c fails after r14-4941-gd1bb9569d70304 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ` (7 preceding siblings ...) 2024-02-19 21:42 ` bergner at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-02-19 22:24 ` bergner at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-02-19 22:40 ` bergner at gcc dot gnu.org ` (2 subsequent siblings) 11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: bergner at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-02-19 22:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112103 Peter Bergner <bergner at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |bergner at gcc dot gnu.org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #6 from Peter Bergner <bergner at gcc dot gnu.org> --- Testing the obvious patch on both LE and BE to ensure it works everywhere. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/112103] [14 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/rlwinm-0.c fails after r14-4941-gd1bb9569d70304 2023-10-26 16:44 [Bug target/112103] New: [14 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/rlwinm-0.c fails after r14-4941-gd1bb9569d70304 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ` (8 preceding siblings ...) 2024-02-19 22:24 ` bergner at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-02-19 22:40 ` bergner at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-02-20 19:45 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-02-20 19:52 ` bergner at gcc dot gnu.org 11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: bergner at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-02-19 22:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112103 Peter Bergner <bergner at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma | |il/gcc-patches/2024-Februar | |y/646008.html --- Comment #7 from Peter Bergner <bergner at gcc dot gnu.org> --- Testing was clean, so submitted. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/112103] [14 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/rlwinm-0.c fails after r14-4941-gd1bb9569d70304 2023-10-26 16:44 [Bug target/112103] New: [14 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/rlwinm-0.c fails after r14-4941-gd1bb9569d70304 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ` (9 preceding siblings ...) 2024-02-19 22:40 ` bergner at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-02-20 19:45 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-02-20 19:52 ` bergner at gcc dot gnu.org 11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-02-20 19:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112103 --- Comment #8 from GCC Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> --- The master branch has been updated by Peter Bergner <bergner@gcc.gnu.org>: https://gcc.gnu.org/g:81e5f276c59897077ffe38202849c93e9c580c41 commit r14-9085-g81e5f276c59897077ffe38202849c93e9c580c41 Author: Peter Bergner <bergner@linux.ibm.com> Date: Tue Feb 20 13:44:43 2024 -0600 rs6000: Update instruction counts due to combine changes [PR112103] The PR91865 combine fix changed instruction counts slightly for rlwinm-0.c. Adjust expected instruction counts accordingly. 2024-02-20 Peter Bergner <bergner@linux.ibm.com> gcc/testsuite/ PR target/112103 * gcc.target/powerpc/rlwinm-0.c: Adjust expected instruction counts. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/112103] [14 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/rlwinm-0.c fails after r14-4941-gd1bb9569d70304 2023-10-26 16:44 [Bug target/112103] New: [14 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/rlwinm-0.c fails after r14-4941-gd1bb9569d70304 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ` (10 preceding siblings ...) 2024-02-20 19:45 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-02-20 19:52 ` bergner at gcc dot gnu.org 11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: bergner at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-02-20 19:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112103 Peter Bergner <bergner at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- See Also| |https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill | |a/show_bug.cgi?id=114004 Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED --- Comment #9 from Peter Bergner <bergner at gcc dot gnu.org> --- Fixed. (In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #5) > We still want to remove the superfluous instruction, but that should be > covered in a separate bug. The fixing of the superfluous insn is being tracked in PR114004. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-02-20 19:52 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 13+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2023-10-26 16:44 [Bug target/112103] New: [14 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/rlwinm-0.c fails after r14-4941-gd1bb9569d70304 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-10-26 21:34 ` [Bug target/112103] " roger at nextmovesoftware dot com 2023-10-27 13:03 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-11-09 18:35 ` segher at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-11-09 18:37 ` segher at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-01-15 13:57 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-01-19 16:48 ` bergner at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-02-16 19:01 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-02-19 21:42 ` bergner at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-02-19 22:24 ` bergner at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-02-19 22:40 ` bergner at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-02-20 19:45 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-02-20 19:52 ` bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).