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 31A963858D35; Sat, 17 Jun 2023 06:08:06 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 31A963858D35
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1686982086;
	bh=GkzSi5XoJCFr6uhe5J2C8C9GIbA5LRSx1VQZu8cQb6Y=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=CZaAEOYyd3cMM7Dq/hzV/kWuKkneRYF3qg6NgnCvFPlCI+y527zHbnP5C/8P9fhFf
	 gSJDfcJPkrxSBsi8nVL/z+ayJ5l4/Eod7CzDGU14XaRToYYcCSd0UibH5R++yDpc2p
	 83owR2LDMGOx5XDCe9LkLI6n7FGhQ8Jlid4nYCpY=
From: "klepikov.alex+bugs at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/54089] [SH] Refactor shift patterns
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2023 06:08:05 +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: klepikov.alex+bugs at gmail dot com
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-ep6dITJi5X@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 #77 from Alexander Klepikov <klepikov.alex+bugs at gmail dot co=
m> ---
> It'd be good if the newly added passes are ran only with -O2 or higher.

This can be confusing to users when they discover that not all invariants a=
re
moved out of loops. Then we should inform them about that at least.

>  Or even better, if we can find a way to enable them only when actually n=
eeded.=20
> E.g. when it's splitting a shift insn that will potentially need the loop
> optimizations again, set a flag in the function.

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

> However, to get better test coverage, it's better first let the additional
> loop passes run all the time to uncover any potential issues.  Later the
> above can be added as a supplementary optimization.

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