public inbox for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus <stefansf@linux.ibm.com>
To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>,
	Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@foss.arm.com>,
	"Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] options: Save and restore opts_set for Optimization and Target options
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 13:21:44 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200930112144.GA97062@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200930093255.GK2176@tucnak>

On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 11:32:55AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 09:50:00PM +0200, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > This patch breaks quite a view test cases (target-attribute/tattr-*) on
> > IBM Z.  Having a look at function cl_target_option_restore reveals that
> > some members of opts_set are reduced to 1 or 0 depending on whether a
> > member was set before or not, e.g. for target_flags we have
> 
> I've tried to reproduce the tattr FAILs reported in
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2020-September/608760.html
> in a cross-compiler (with
> #define HAVE_AS_MACHINE_MACHINEMODE 1
> ), but couldn't, neither the ICEs nor the scan-assembler failures.
> Anyway, could you do a side-by-side debugging of one of those failures
> before/after my change and see what behaves differently?

I think the problem boils down that on S/390 we distinguish between four
states of a flag: explicitely set to yes/no and implicitely set to
yes/no.  If set explicitely, the option wins.  For example, the options
`-march=z10 -mhtm` should enable the hardware transactional memory
option although z10 does not have one.  In the past if a flag was set or
not explicitely was encoded into opts_set->x_target_flags ... for each
flag individually, e.g. TARGET_OPT_HTM_P (opts_set->x_target_flags) was
used.  This has changed with the mentioned patch in the sense that
opts_set encodes whether any flag of x_target_flags was set or not but
not which individual one after a call to the generated function
cl_target_option_restore where we have:
opts_set->x_target_flags = (mask & 1) != 0;

Compiling the following program

#pragma GCC target ("arch=z10")
void fn_pragma_0 (void) { }

with options `-march=z13 -mzarch -mhtm -mdebug` produces different flags
for 4ac7b669580 (commit prior your patch) and ba948b37768 (your patch).

This is my current understanding of the option handling.  I will try to
come up with a trace where these things become hopefully more clear.

Cheers,
Stefan

  reply	other threads:[~2020-09-30 11:21 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-09-08  8:45 [PATCH] arm: Fix up arm_override_options_after_change [PR96939] Jakub Jelinek
2020-09-08 22:01 ` Jeff Law
2020-09-10  8:51 ` [PATCH] arm: Fix up arm_override_options_after_change_1 Jakub Jelinek
2020-09-10 14:11   ` Kyrylo Tkachov
2020-09-10 14:58     ` Jeff Law
2020-09-10 15:01     ` Jakub Jelinek
2020-09-10 15:04       ` Kyrylo Tkachov
2020-09-11  7:46 ` [PATCH] arm: Fix up arm_override_options_after_change [PR96939] Christophe Lyon
2020-09-11  9:29   ` Jakub Jelinek
2020-09-13  8:29     ` [PATCH] options: Save and restore opts_set for Optimization and Target options Jakub Jelinek
2020-09-14  6:32       ` Richard Biener
2020-09-14  8:06         ` Christophe Lyon
2020-09-28 19:50       ` Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
2020-09-28 19:58         ` Jakub Jelinek
2020-09-30  9:32         ` Jakub Jelinek
2020-09-30 11:21           ` Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus [this message]
2020-09-30 11:39             ` Jakub Jelinek
2020-09-30 13:24               ` Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
2020-10-02  8:46                 ` Jakub Jelinek
2020-10-02 14:21                   ` Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
2020-10-03  8:41                     ` Jakub Jelinek
2020-10-03 18:02                       ` Richard Biener
2020-10-04  7:13                   ` Andreas Schwab
2020-10-04 19:16                     ` Jakub Jelinek
2020-10-05  7:08                       ` Jakub Jelinek
2020-10-05  7:10                         ` Richard Biener
2020-10-06  9:28                       ` Andreas Schwab
2020-10-06 13:20                         ` [PATCH] options: Avoid unused variable mask warning [PR97305] Jakub Jelinek
2020-10-06 13:32                           ` Richard Biener

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20200930112144.GA97062@localhost.localdomain \
    --to=stefansf@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=Richard.Earnshaw@foss.arm.com \
    --cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=jakub@redhat.com \
    --cc=joseph@codesourcery.com \
    --cc=rguenther@suse.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).