[Bug tree-optimization/54240] New: Routine hoist_adjacent_loads does not work properly after r189366

[Bug tree-optimization/54240] New: Routine hoist_adjacent_loads does not work properly after r189366

[ysrumyan at gmail dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54240

             Bug #: 54240
           Summary: Routine hoist_adjacent_loads does not work properly
                    after r189366
    Classification: Unclassified
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.8.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: tree-optimization
        AssignedTo: unassigned@gcc.gnu.org
        ReportedBy: ysrumyan@gmail.com


This regression can be seen in the attached simple test-case - cmov conversion
is not happened. The fix is evident:

--- tree-ssa-phiopt.c   (revision 190151)
+++ tree-ssa-phiopt.c   (working copy)
@@ -1864,7 +1864,7 @@

       /* Check the mode of the arguments to be sure a conditional move
         can be generated for it.  */
-      if (!optab_handler (cmov_optab, TYPE_MODE (TREE_TYPE (arg1))))
+      if (optab_handler (cmov_optab, TYPE_MODE (TREE_TYPE (arg1)) ==
CODE_FOR_nothing))
        continue;

       /* Both statements must be assignments whose RHS is a COMPONENT_REF.  */

You can see this regression on any platform supporting conditional moves (I
tested it on x86).

[Bug tree-optimization/54240] Routine hoist_adjacent_loads does not work properly after r189366

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54240

--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-08-13 12:39:10 UTC ---
*** Bug 54241 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug tree-optimization/54240] Routine hoist_adjacent_loads does not work properly after r189366

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54240

Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-08-13 12:41:10 UTC ---
Confirmed.  William?  Why don't we see any failed testcases?

[Bug tree-optimization/54240] Routine hoist_adjacent_loads does not work properly after r189366

[michael.v.zolotukhin at gmail dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54240

--- Comment #3 from William J. Schmidt <wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-08-13 14:14:59 UTC ---
Odd, I don't know.  I'll have to go back and look at the tests when I get a
moment and investigate that.  Peculiar.

--- Comment #4 from Michael Zolotukhin <michael.v.zolotukhin at gmail dot com> 2012-08-13 14:15:08 UTC ---
Created attachment 28006
  --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28006
test-case confirming the issue

[Bug tree-optimization/54240] Routine hoist_adjacent_loads does not work properly after r189366

[wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54240

--- Comment #3 from William J. Schmidt <wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-08-13 14:14:59 UTC ---
Odd, I don't know.  I'll have to go back and look at the tests when I get a
moment and investigate that.  Peculiar.

[Bug tree-optimization/54240] Routine hoist_adjacent_loads does not work properly after r189366

[wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54240

--- Comment #5 from William J. Schmidt <wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-08-13 14:24:48 UTC ---
Well, I'm embarrassed.  The tests I wrote for this functionality never got into
the test suite -- I apparently forgot to submit them with the patch -- and I
can't find them anymore.  I'll write some new ones soon.  Apologies for the
oversight. :(

[Bug tree-optimization/54240] Routine hoist_adjacent_loads does not work properly after r189366

[wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54240

William J. Schmidt <wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |ASSIGNED
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2012-08-13
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot       |wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
                   |gnu.org                     |
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #6 from William J. Schmidt <wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-08-13 15:46:31 UTC ---
Mine.

[Bug tree-optimization/54240] Routine hoist_adjacent_loads does not work properly after r189366

[wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54240

--- Comment #7 from William J. Schmidt <wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-08-13 20:39:59 UTC ---
Something else is broken, too, as the optab handlers for cmov on powerpc64
appear to have gone missing.  I'll get one of our back-end specialists to help
me understand that.

[Bug tree-optimization/54240] Routine hoist_adjacent_loads does not work properly after r189366

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54240

--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-08-13 21:59:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Something else is broken, too, as the optab handlers for cmov on powerpc64
> appear to have gone missing.  I'll get one of our back-end specialists to help
> me understand that.

They are only enabled for TARGET_ISEL<sel> which is either TARGET_ISEL or 
TARGET_ISEL64 which is correct as ppc64 does not have isel by default.

[Bug tree-optimization/54240] Routine hoist_adjacent_loads does not work properly after r189366

[wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54240

--- Comment #9 from William J. Schmidt <wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-08-14 11:44:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> (In reply to comment #7)
> > Something else is broken, too, as the optab handlers for cmov on powerpc64
> > appear to have gone missing.  I'll get one of our back-end specialists to help
> > me understand that.
> 
> They are only enabled for TARGET_ISEL<sel> which is either TARGET_ISEL or 
> TARGET_ISEL64 which is correct as ppc64 does not have isel by default.

Right.  But the problem is the optab entries are no longer being built at all
when configured correctly.  Something seems to have changed recently to break
this.

[Bug tree-optimization/54240] Routine hoist_adjacent_loads does not work properly after r189366

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54240

--- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-08-14 11:47:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #8)
> > (In reply to comment #7)
> > > Something else is broken, too, as the optab handlers for cmov on powerpc64
> > > appear to have gone missing.  I'll get one of our back-end specialists to help
> > > me understand that.
> > 
> > They are only enabled for TARGET_ISEL<sel> which is either TARGET_ISEL or 
> > TARGET_ISEL64 which is correct as ppc64 does not have isel by default.
> 
> Right.  But the problem is the optab entries are no longer being built at all
> when configured correctly.  Something seems to have changed recently to break
> this.

Richard changed optabs to a sparse representation IIRC.

[Bug tree-optimization/54240] Routine hoist_adjacent_loads does not work properly after r189366

[wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54240

--- Comment #11 from William J. Schmidt <wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-08-14 19:48:40 UTC ---
Well.  It turns out that cmov_optab was a red herring.  Apparently no ports are
generating this, and actually movcc_optab is what's being used instead.  My
guess is that cmov_optab should probably be removed as unused.  Thanks to Mike
for helping me sort that out.  Patch (with testcase) coming soon.

[Bug tree-optimization/54240] Routine hoist_adjacent_loads does not work properly after r189366

[wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54240

--- Comment #12 from William J. Schmidt <wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-08-15 13:17:47 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Aug 15 13:17:42 2012
New Revision: 190411

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190411
Log:
gcc:

2012-08-15  Bill Schmidt  <wschmidt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

    PR tree-optimization/54240
    * tree-ssa-phiopt.c (hoist_adjacent_loads): Correct test for
    existence of conditional move with given mode.


gcc/testsuite:

2012-08-15  Bill Schmidt  <wschmidt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

    PR tree-optimization/54240
    * gcc.target/powerpc/pr54240.c: New test.
    * gcc.target/mips/pr54240.c: Likewise.


Added:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/mips/pr54240.c
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr54240.c
Modified:
    trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/tree-ssa-phiopt.c

[Bug tree-optimization/54240] Routine hoist_adjacent_loads does not work properly after r189366

[wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54240

William J. Schmidt <wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.8.0

--- Comment #13 from William J. Schmidt <wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-08-15 13:20:58 UTC ---
Fixed.  Yuri or Michael, if you would like to add a version of the pr54240.c
test case for Intel targets, that would be a bonus.  I don't know how to set
the compile flags for subtargets with conditional moves on that architecture.