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).