From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-475962-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 18572 invoked by alias); 4 Feb 2015 04:06:17 -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 18379 invoked by uid 48); 4 Feb 2015 04:06:13 -0000
From: "amker at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/62631] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ivopts-lt-2.c FAILs
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 04:06:00 -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: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: amker at gcc dot gnu.org
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-TDJBg4K7gP@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: 2015-02/txt/msg00295.txt.bz2

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

--- Comment #15 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to amker from comment #14)
> (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #12)
> > I'm about to install a patch that changes the costs on SPARC 64-bit to:
> > 
> > Use 1:
> >   cand  cost    compl.  depends on
> >   0     4       0        inv_expr:0
> >   1     8       0       
> >   4     6       0        inv_expr:1
> >   5     0       0       
> >   6     0       0
> > 
> > but this doesn't change the outcome of the test. :-(
> 
> I will have a look why it fails with refined cost.
> 
> Thanks,
> bin

The cost of expression "p + ((sizetype)(99 - i_6(D)) + 1) * 4"  computed using
normal +/-/* operators on sparc64 is 18, but the cost is 32 if it is computed
as "p + ((sizetype)(99 - i_6(D)) + 1) << 2", which is returned by
get_shiftadd_cost.

>>From the assembly code, it seems the computation is expensive on sparc64, I may
skip the test for these architectures if no other solutions.

Thanks.