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 C12D03858C00; Sat, 17 Jun 2023 07:06:01 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org C12D03858C00
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1686985561;
	bh=3KfUqfroAzLEbSNwzOnWnddE+Arg7FVAc+byiXu6hbw=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=c6+9g2eulg8ZcpqaVtgbbhBU0LDyxIHHsvaStghVGXS1/IBP7rQTY2dNnu3QBTZhT
	 TF5cqmPyl2DMDfgGx3SzqEEn9Gc7jOmPBGwasbsNsTDOSg7Z98RxdnXDadXJR5sICU
	 FkXPTG1hhfLXfY5inwdCIDRxjzGIXtQHjkGR/e94=
From: "olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/54089] [SH] Refactor shift patterns
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2023 07:06:00 +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: 4.8.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-54089-4-CWsavTErKS@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-54089-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-54089-4@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=3D54089

--- Comment #78 from Oleg Endo <olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Alexander Klepikov from comment #77)
> > It'd be good if the newly added passes are ran only with -O2 or higher.
>=20
> This can be confusing to users when they discover that not all invariants
> are moved out of loops. Then we should inform them about that at least.

I don't think the compiler reports any optimizations not done to the user at
lower optimization levels?  It's normal not to do certain optimizations at a
lower level, that's why we have -O0 -O1 -O2 ... or do you mean something el=
se
by that?

> I'm thinking about this for some time. We know that we should potentially
> run additional loop optimization pass when we're splitting libcall. I did
> not find the way to know in what function we are splitting yet.

The compiler processes one function at a time, all passes at once.  It does=
n't
mix passes of different functions.  So I think using global variable in sh.=
cc +
override 'set_current_function' should get the job done.  When the insn spl=
it
code is executed, just set the global flag in the SH specific function cont=
ext.


> I see some strange new exec fails only at testsuite logs. Right now I'm
> trying to find the cause.

What's the configure line of your GCC build?=