[Bug testsuite/98676] New: gcc.target/i386/pr95021-1.c etc. FAIL

[Bug testsuite/98676] New: gcc.target/i386/pr95021-1.c etc. FAIL

[ro at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98676

            Bug ID: 98676
           Summary: gcc.target/i386/pr95021-1.c etc. FAIL
           Product: gcc
           Version: 11.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: testsuite
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: ro at gcc dot gnu.org
                CC: hjl.tools at gmail dot com
  Target Milestone: ---
            Target: i386-pc-solaris2.11, x86_64-pc-solaris2.11,
                    i586-unknown-freebsd11.4, i686-apple-darwin8

As originally reported in PR middle-end/95021, Comment 11, two of the new
testcases added with the fix for that PR FAIL:

+FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr95021-1.c scan-assembler movq[ \\t]%xmm[0-9]+,
\\\\(%esp\\\\)
+FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr95021-3.c scan-assembler movq[ \\t]+[^\\n]*, %xmm

I originally saw this on 32-bit Solaris/x86, but there are reports for other
targets as well.

[Bug testsuite/98676] gcc.target/i386/pr95021-1.c etc. FAIL

[ro at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98676

Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|---                         |11.0

[Bug testsuite/98676] [11 Regression] gcc.target/i386/pr95021-1.c etc. FAIL

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98676

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Priority|P3                          |P1
            Summary|gcc.target/i386/pr95021-1.c |[11 Regression]
                   |etc. FAIL                   |gcc.target/i386/pr95021-1.c
                   |                            |etc. FAIL

[Bug testsuite/98676] [11 Regression] gcc.target/i386/pr95021-1.c etc. FAIL

[hjl.tools at gmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98676

--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> ---
Created attachment 49966
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49966&action=edit
A patch

STV is disabled by

  /* Disable STV if -mpreferred-stack-boundary={2,3} or
     -mincoming-stack-boundary={2,3} or -mstackrealign - the needed
     stack realignment will be extra cost the pass doesn't take into
     account and the pass can't realign the stack.  */
  if (ix86_preferred_stack_boundary < 128
      || ix86_incoming_stack_boundary < 128
      || opts->x_ix86_force_align_arg_pointer)
    opts->x_target_flags &= ~MASK_STV;

Please try this.

[Bug testsuite/98676] [11 Regression] gcc.target/i386/pr95021-1.c etc. FAIL

[ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98676

--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
> --- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> ---
> Created attachment 49966
>   --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49966&action=edit
> A patch
>
> STV is disabled by
[...]
> Please try this.

Successfully tested on i386-pc-solaris2.11 (both 32 and 64-bit).
Thanks.

[Bug testsuite/98676] [11 Regression] gcc.target/i386/pr95021-1.c etc. FAIL

[cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98676

--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu <hjl@gcc.gnu.org>:

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a512079ef40e442c1269ea1cc55f18790ba68449

commit r11-6669-ga512079ef40e442c1269ea1cc55f18790ba68449
Author: H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu Jan 14 06:56:17 2021 -0800

    i386: Update PR target/95021 tests

    Also pass -mpreferred-stack-boundary=4 -mno-stackrealign to avoid
    disabling STV by:

      /* Disable STV if -mpreferred-stack-boundary={2,3} or
         -mincoming-stack-boundary={2,3} or -mstackrealign - the needed
         stack realignment will be extra cost the pass doesn't take into
         account and the pass can't realign the stack.  */
      if (ix86_preferred_stack_boundary < 128
          || ix86_incoming_stack_boundary < 128
          || opts->x_ix86_force_align_arg_pointer)
        opts->x_target_flags &= ~MASK_STV;

            PR target/98676
            * gcc.target/i386/pr95021-1.c: Add -mpreferred-stack-boundary=4
            -mno-stackrealign.
            * gcc.target/i386/pr95021-3.c: Likewise.

[Bug testsuite/98676] [11 Regression] gcc.target/i386/pr95021-1.c etc. FAIL

[hjl.tools at gmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98676

H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED

--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> ---
Fixed.