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).