From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1891C3883027; Wed, 19 Jun 2024 07:28:22 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 1891C3883027 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 1891C3883027 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=148.163.156.1 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1718782104; cv=none; b=Hj1rUx1bLTtRIPWeP1ThUsrj35tsi6FB/QM1COD3PX3dkBOw7gXzyuy9hYoxCR86YOvx+JSsinqHTP4GxwJPvIPodQvde7kaFwBsNkdzVof3wxyfnrcx30a1vVvapFmkqtSwDSnFzXrspWzFs1hIdUApNqrwE9uSnqcgHKlSwX4= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1718782104; c=relaxed/simple; bh=4WOPm8QWq5w8ahbO0vIhScb0Sf84renmqvnmzSGsr7c=; h=DKIM-Signature:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:From:Subject:To; b=V61bsXeDa1RWlRtjCOJKbEGO2YiIR7IL7ZdjJQBCuM0Wxlt30JlfF43glMPR+bVSHUNgX0GnCLE17c1RM0CMJXRjAsT2xmDA3XWzj5Yh3CSKrT2in3SmboUCEQBlipgXMWp6+ynoE4+EItHzPG085BYAfJdNwsCaz9d80QLTmHY= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org Received: from pps.filterd (m0353727.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.18.1.2/8.18.1.2) with ESMTP id 45J5TqYh028095; Wed, 19 Jun 2024 07:28:20 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h= message-id:date:mime-version:from:subject:to:cc:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=d QR4mcYj5xVrThON78a/GeUiPDvLRXt/8YS7FRYQny4=; b=UII+ZlcfZh/J8cCon 2iW55gZdbfZxcAkXcIwH8yECsDCNwRfyuAK9f/SisT8stzwBWY85+m2VXgTckJAV gDj+luvLLKHTi3KeblpkQbKGqvfb5qlJX3xAyYd2kfdJ66D6omF0UxMc6F8nNzFe 8n0K7zZeSDyRM6TznxnGmdtvS79WuXQ3PuTpzjxfcdh6cHKyg6OM6Ris+WD+7RpN WAFItITIUZgaZWXIuQUs4gtrBxsnxksBjrh5C3KzTEzw/ShkgHqdMBbdoD5UcXkY /ezLpsqsDe/jISd7xu493wvpT3HZr4KjIK6QgiG23XWgkkkKwHejb8D/l6xIn4pX FUnag== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3yus7j8a4r-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 19 Jun 2024 07:28:19 +0000 (GMT) Received: from m0353727.ppops.net (m0353727.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.18.0.8/8.18.0.8) with ESMTP id 45J7SJNZ031464; Wed, 19 Jun 2024 07:28:19 GMT Received: from ppma23.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (5d.69.3da9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.61.105.93]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3yus7j8a4n-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 19 Jun 2024 07:28:19 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pps.filterd (ppma23.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma23.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 45J6HHpp011052; Wed, 19 Jun 2024 07:28:18 GMT Received: from smtprelay02.fra02v.mail.ibm.com ([9.218.2.226]) by ppma23.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3yspsna0da-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 19 Jun 2024 07:28:18 +0000 Received: from smtpav02.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (smtpav02.fra02v.mail.ibm.com [10.20.54.101]) by smtprelay02.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 45J7SC9946268740 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 19 Jun 2024 07:28:14 GMT Received: from smtpav02.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 425CC2004B; Wed, 19 Jun 2024 07:28:12 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav02.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C4A72005A; Wed, 19 Jun 2024 07:28:10 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.200.158.244] (unknown [9.200.158.244]) by smtpav02.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Wed, 19 Jun 2024 07:28:10 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <14d9c39a-2fd7-0d3b-73a5-bafdd2313be6@linux.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 15:28:08 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.15.1 From: "Kewen.Lin" Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] rs6000: Fix incorrect RTL for Power LE when removing the UNSPECS [PR106069] To: Peter Bergner Cc: segher@kernel.crashing.org, dje.gcc@gmail.com, guojiufu@linux.ibm.com, linkw@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Xionghu Luo References: <20230210025952.1887696-1-xionghuluo@tencent.com> <9564021b-80d0-7eb8-e84b-1918d0718893@linux.ibm.com> Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: vSmlsfKfN2r1Yay33LJG3jdNFYtw5ulA X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: XLwCWIID0ZGdENENx01xCSb2dxJlbDua X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.293,Aquarius:18.0.1039,Hydra:6.0.680,FMLib:17.12.28.16 definitions=2024-06-19_02,2024-06-17_01,2024-05-17_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 lowpriorityscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 priorityscore=1501 phishscore=0 clxscore=1015 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.19.0-2405170001 definitions=main-2406190053 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_EF,NICE_REPLY_A,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: on 2024/6/19 03:02, Peter Bergner wrote: > On 6/12/24 2:50 AM, Kewen.Lin wrote: >> As the recent PR115355 shows, this issue can also affect the >> behavior when users are adopting vectorization optimization, >> IMHO we should get this landed as soon as possible. > > I agree we want this fixed ASAP. > > > > >> As all said above, I believe this patch is a correct fix and >> considering the impact of the issue, I'd like to get this >> pushed next week if no objections. > > The only complaint I have on the patch, and I know this existed before > the patch, is we're using register_operand for the predicate for these > patterns when we probably should be using altivec_register_operand or > vsx_register_operand depending on the specific pattern. Good catch. > > Yes, other pre-existing patterns use that, but those should probably be > fixed too. Maybe we go with register_operand for now with this patch > and then have a follow-on patch (from us) that cleans those all up??? Yes, since this issue existed before and sort of widely, I think we want some other separated patch to clean them up. > > Otherwise, LGTM (although I can't approve it). Thanks! I noticed Segher posted some more review comments on patch v4, I'll follow up them. :) BR, Kewen