public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug tree-optimization/114678] New: FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/range-sincos.c scan-tree-dump-not evrp "link_error" on s390 @ 2024-04-10 13:39 stefansf at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-04-10 16:48 ` [Bug tree-optimization/114678] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ` (4 more replies) 0 siblings, 5 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: stefansf at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-04-10 13:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114678 Bug ID: 114678 Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/range-sincos.c scan-tree-dump-not evrp "link_error" on s390 Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: tree-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: stefansf at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- Target: s390*-*-* FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/range-sincos.c scan-tree-dump-not evrp "link_error" I assume this is due to the case that on s390 we have an isinf optab. Thus, prior evrp we end up with void bar (double x) { int _1; double _5; <bb 2> : _5 = sin (x_4(D)); if (_5 ord _5) goto <bb 3>; [INV] else goto <bb 5>; [INV] <bb 3> : _1 = __builtin_isinf (x_4(D)); if (_1 != 0) goto <bb 4>; [INV] else goto <bb 5>; [INV] <bb 4> : link_error (); <bb 5> : return; } whereas, e.g., on x86-64 we have void bar (double x) { double _1; double _7; <bb 2> : _7 = sin (x_6(D)); if (_7 ord _7) goto <bb 3>; [INV] else goto <bb 7>; [INV] <bb 3> : if (x_6(D) unord x_6(D)) goto <bb 4>; [INV] else goto <bb 5>; [INV] <bb 4> : link_error (); <bb 5> : _1 = ABS_EXPR <x_6(D)>; if (_1 u<= 1.79769313486231570814527423731704356798070567525844996599e+308) goto <bb 7>; [INV] else goto <bb 6>; [INV] <bb 6> : link_error (); <bb 7> : return; } If this optimization is all about ABS_EXPR the following patch would work on s390x and x86-64: @@ -24,20 +24,20 @@ bar (double x) { if (__builtin_isnan (x)) link_error (); - if (__builtin_isinf (x)) + if (__builtin_fabs (x) == __builtin_inf ()) link_error (); } } However, I'm not sure whether this is not also a missed optimization in case of an isinf optab? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/114678] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/range-sincos.c scan-tree-dump-not evrp "link_error" on s390 2024-04-10 13:39 [Bug tree-optimization/114678] New: FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/range-sincos.c scan-tree-dump-not evrp "link_error" on s390 stefansf at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-04-10 16:48 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-04-10 16:51 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ` (3 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-04-10 16:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114678 Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |85316 Keywords| |missed-optimization, | |testsuite-fail Version|unknown |14.0 CC| |amacleod at redhat dot com --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> --- I guess VRP should handle __builtin_isinf and friends. Referenced Bugs: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85316 [Bug 85316] [meta-bug] VRP range propagation missed cases ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/114678] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/range-sincos.c scan-tree-dump-not evrp "link_error" on s390 2024-04-10 13:39 [Bug tree-optimization/114678] New: FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/range-sincos.c scan-tree-dump-not evrp "link_error" on s390 stefansf at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-04-10 16:48 ` [Bug tree-optimization/114678] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-04-10 16:51 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-04-11 13:30 ` stefansf at gcc dot gnu.org ` (2 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-04-10 16:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114678 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1) > I guess VRP should handle __builtin_isinf and friends. Like was posted here: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-March/648303.html ? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/114678] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/range-sincos.c scan-tree-dump-not evrp "link_error" on s390 2024-04-10 13:39 [Bug tree-optimization/114678] New: FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/range-sincos.c scan-tree-dump-not evrp "link_error" on s390 stefansf at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-04-10 16:48 ` [Bug tree-optimization/114678] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-04-10 16:51 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-04-11 13:30 ` stefansf at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-04-11 21:12 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-04-12 8:38 ` stefansf at gcc dot gnu.org 4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: stefansf at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-04-11 13:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114678 --- Comment #3 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus <stefansf at gcc dot gnu.org> --- Thanks for the pointer. I can confirm that the patch fixes this PR and also fixes FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp-float-abs-1.c scan-tree-dump-not evrp "link_error" ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/114678] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/range-sincos.c scan-tree-dump-not evrp "link_error" on s390 2024-04-10 13:39 [Bug tree-optimization/114678] New: FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/range-sincos.c scan-tree-dump-not evrp "link_error" on s390 stefansf at gcc dot gnu.org ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2024-04-11 13:30 ` stefansf at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-04-11 21:12 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-04-12 8:38 ` stefansf at gcc dot gnu.org 4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-04-11 21:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114678 Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW CC| |pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org Last reconfirmed| |2024-04-11 Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> --- Confirmed then. Maybe you should xfail it for s390 for GCC 14 at least and then unxfail when the patch is committed? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/114678] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/range-sincos.c scan-tree-dump-not evrp "link_error" on s390 2024-04-10 13:39 [Bug tree-optimization/114678] New: FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/range-sincos.c scan-tree-dump-not evrp "link_error" on s390 stefansf at gcc dot gnu.org ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 2024-04-11 21:12 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-04-12 8:38 ` stefansf at gcc dot gnu.org 4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: stefansf at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-04-12 8:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114678 --- Comment #5 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus <stefansf at gcc dot gnu.org> --- Ok, done in https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-April/649367.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-04-12 8:38 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2024-04-10 13:39 [Bug tree-optimization/114678] New: FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/range-sincos.c scan-tree-dump-not evrp "link_error" on s390 stefansf at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-04-10 16:48 ` [Bug tree-optimization/114678] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-04-10 16:51 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-04-11 13:30 ` stefansf at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-04-11 21:12 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-04-12 8:38 ` stefansf 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).