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 EDFA338582B3; Wed, 10 Jan 2024 09:19:15 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org EDFA338582B3
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1704878355;
	bh=jfFGIvAexC7/v7PI5Uu54qypdh1zsO6QF3b9gGeBq48=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=Qps9zOnSQS/Zqh5qcBNOgQfZ8ZHPeMDTv0JJUxoknVWa2Jregk7smp5ffdfr53N3X
	 KzdJZnYcZ9kXQLcshdmgOxQ1waUryoHr4qCjLNbNgkWcRyoLH7WR1jH8vyiuoqLgoN
	 +DVkLXPyrhIzwZlvSV/Zrnneqk4w37VGpplLMqWM=
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/113059] [14 regression] fftw fails tests for -O3 -m32
 -march=znver2 since r14-6210-ge44ed92dbbe9d4
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 09:19:15 +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: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1
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-113059-4-Uqeyso2oDB@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-113059-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-113059-4@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=3D113059

--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #11)
> IMHO REG_UNUSED notes should stay correct or be removed.  Instead of a fu=
ll
> solution can we just wipe them in postreload-cse as we know that pass will
> break them?  Any user then should recompute the notes.  Originally pass
> properties were thought of a vehicle indicating these kind of IL features,
> so we
> could add PROP_rtl_unused_notes and if not set treat them as possibly
> invalid when present (instead of actively wiping them), and when a pass
> requires them re-compute them.
>=20
> The problem with properties is that they are always set/unset irrespective
> of whether a pass did something destroying it.  That could be
> circumvented by postreload-cse only clearing the flag when it does
> something.
>=20
> Not (re-)using pass properties for this but a flag in struct function
> works as well of course (or treat it as part of the DF state).

I was hoping we could have some df checking which would discover invalid
REG_UNUSED notes and so we would know which passes need tweaking, but I'm
afraid my df knowledge is insufficient for that.
Dunno how often postreload-cse actually extends life time of some register,
which should determine whether we want to drop REG_UNUSED notes uncondition=
ally
at the end of postreload-cse, or whether we e.g. want just some flag whether
we've extended lifetime of something during it and only remove REG_UNUSED n=
otes
if that flag is set.=