From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-461660-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 22088 invoked by alias); 12 Sep 2014 10:58:29 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 22033 invoked by uid 55); 12 Sep 2014 10:58:25 -0000
From: "ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/62631] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ivopts-lt-2.c FAILs
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 10:58:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-62631-4-BvPtSS9bgW@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-62631-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-62631-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2014-09/txt/msg01494.txt.bz2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631

--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
> --- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
>> I think that's easiest for Eric to say.
>
> Not really, I guess you want to debug the function and replay the computation
> since the cost is synthetized and doesn't come directly from the back-end.

I've found what's going on:

* In expmed.c (init_expmed_one_mode), l.194

  set_shiftadd_cost (speed, mode, m, set_src_cost (all->shift_add, speed));

  with all->shift_add something like

(plus:QI (mult:QI (reg:QI 109 [0])
        (const_int 8 [0x8]))
    (reg:QI 109 [0]))

* For the mult part, rtx_code calls sparc_rtx_cost, which has

    case MULT:
      if (float_mode_p)
    *total = sparc_costs->float_mul;
      else if (! TARGET_HARD_MUL)
    *total = COSTS_N_INSNS (25);

  On SPARCv9/-m64, TARGET_HARD_MUL is false, so we get the 25*4 = 100 part,
  unlike v8, which explains why the test only fails for 64-bit.

    Rainer