* [Bug ipa/92550] [10 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-sra-8.c execution test
[not found] <bug-92550-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2020-04-09 16:29 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-04-09 16:34 ` [Bug target/92550] " jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-04-09 16:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92550
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Almost certainly started with new IPA-SRA (r275982 or as we now call
it gcc-10-3311-gff6686d2e5f). I looked at dumps from a cross-compiler
and the funny bit is, however, that new IPA-SRA simply does nothing.
That is not as it should be. Because foo is not versionable, the pass
does not even look at it and then cannot do anything because it has
not seen a call to get_a. But of course it should still analyze
outgoing calls to allow IPA-SRA of callees.
But that is merely a missed optimization, not this miscompilation. I
looks almost as if it was simply the expand of misaligned structure
copy that is broken on (this?) strict-aliasing target. I also believe
the test case does not successfuly run when compiled with earlier
revisions and option -fno-ipa-sra.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug target/92550] [10 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-sra-8.c execution test
[not found] <bug-92550-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2020-04-09 16:29 ` [Bug ipa/92550] [10 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-sra-8.c execution test jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-04-09 16:34 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-04-09 17:52 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-04-09 16:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92550
Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component|ipa |target
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Not an IPA issue.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug target/92550] [10 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-sra-8.c execution test
[not found] <bug-92550-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2020-04-09 16:29 ` [Bug ipa/92550] [10 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-sra-8.c execution test jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-04-09 16:34 ` [Bug target/92550] " jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-04-09 17:52 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-04-09 17:53 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-04-09 17:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92550
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Just a wild guess that this might be fallout of all the param/expand reorg
around strict alignment correctness for arm.
John, are you set up to bisect the testcase with an additional -fno-ipa-sra
flag?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug target/92550] [10 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-sra-8.c execution test
[not found] <bug-92550-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2020-04-09 17:52 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-04-09 17:53 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-04-09 18:25 ` dave.anglin at bell dot net
` (4 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-04-09 17:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92550
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Might also be interesting to try other strict-align targets with -fno-ipa-sra.
But - this might also be a speciality of the callee-copy ABI of hpux.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug target/92550] [10 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-sra-8.c execution test
[not found] <bug-92550-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2020-04-09 17:53 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-04-09 18:25 ` dave.anglin at bell dot net
2020-04-09 18:28 ` dave.anglin at bell dot net
` (3 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: dave.anglin at bell dot net @ 2020-04-09 18:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92550
--- Comment #7 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2020-04-09 1:53 p.m., rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Might also be interesting to try other strict-align targets with -fno-ipa-sra.
> But - this might also be a speciality of the callee-copy ABI of hpux.
I agree. The test doesn't fail on linux which we changed to caller copy.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug target/92550] [10 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-sra-8.c execution test
[not found] <bug-92550-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2020-04-09 18:25 ` dave.anglin at bell dot net
@ 2020-04-09 18:28 ` dave.anglin at bell dot net
2020-04-10 17:55 ` [Bug testsuite/92550] " danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: dave.anglin at bell dot net @ 2020-04-09 18:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92550
--- Comment #8 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2020-04-09 1:52 p.m., rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> John, are you set up to bisect the testcase with an additional -fno-ipa-sra
> flag?
I can bisect but not in a very automated way.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug testsuite/92550] FAIL: gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-sra-8.c execution test
[not found] <bug-92550-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2020-04-09 18:28 ` dave.anglin at bell dot net
@ 2020-04-10 17:55 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-04-12 13:47 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-04-14 6:18 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: danglin at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-04-10 17:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92550
John David Anglin <danglin at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component|target |testsuite
Summary|[10 Regression] FAIL: |FAIL:
|gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-sra-8.c |gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-sra-8.c
|execution test |execution test
--- Comment #9 from John David Anglin <danglin at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
With -fno-ipa-sra, the test always fails since it was first introduced.
The test passes if I change the argument of get_a from SS to SSS. Then,
it handles the misaligned argument:
get_a:
.PROC
.CALLINFO FRAME=0,NO_CALLS
.ENTRY
.stabn 68,0,14,L$M0001-L$FBB0001
L$M0001:
ldb 0(%r26),%r19
zdep %r19,7,8,%r19
ldb 1(%r26),%r20
zdep %r20,15,16,%r20
ldb 2(%r26),%r28
or %r20,%r19,%r20
zdep %r28,23,24,%r28
ldb 3(%r26),%r19
or %r28,%r20,%r28
.stabn 68,0,17,L$M0002-L$FBB0001
L$M0002:
bv %r0(%r2)
or %r19,%r28,%r28
.EXIT
.PROCEND
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug testsuite/92550] FAIL: gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-sra-8.c execution test
[not found] <bug-92550-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2020-04-10 17:55 ` [Bug testsuite/92550] " danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-04-12 13:47 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-04-14 6:18 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: danglin at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-04-12 13:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92550
--- Comment #10 from John David Anglin <danglin at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 48257
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48257&action=edit
Patch to fix argument alignment
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug testsuite/92550] FAIL: gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-sra-8.c execution test
[not found] <bug-92550-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2020-04-12 13:47 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-04-14 6:18 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-04-14 6:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92550
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Target Milestone|10.0 |---
Last reconfirmed| |2020-04-14
Keywords|wrong-code |
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Priority|P4 |P3
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Indeed an obvious bug in the testcase, prone to fail on any strict-align
target.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread