From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8AA8C3858C27 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 2021 07:06:03 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 8AA8C3858C27 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098420.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 13K74LWp093189 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 2021 03:06:03 -0400 Received: from ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com (62.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.98]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 381ssr8rjw-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 20 Apr 2021 03:06:02 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 13K6wOUv026240 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 2021 07:06:01 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay12.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.197]) by ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 37yqa8hgd4-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 20 Apr 2021 07:06:01 +0000 Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.160]) by b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 13K75wiD52625888 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 20 Apr 2021 07:05:58 GMT Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 699FFA4065; Tue, 20 Apr 2021 07:05:58 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A787A4062; Tue, 20 Apr 2021 07:05:58 +0000 (GMT) Received: from li-23497a81-5215-11cb-9bae-a81330ecc14b.ibm.com (unknown [9.171.68.39]) by b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 20 Apr 2021 07:05:58 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] s390/testsuite: Fix oscbreak-1.c. To: Robin Dapp , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org References: <5278ee53-68ce-3c64-3047-b8d65770aa5a@linux.ibm.com> From: Andreas Krebbel Message-ID: <2690ced6-f5b4-f517-2538-1a1340e2c72d@linux.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 09:05:57 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5278ee53-68ce-3c64-3047-b8d65770aa5a@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: CD6qNt8U-rpzR8qobXmZZRnjq6cNBcvC X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: CD6qNt8U-rpzR8qobXmZZRnjq6cNBcvC X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391, 18.0.761 definitions=2021-04-20_02:2021-04-19, 2021-04-20 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 impostorscore=0 mlxscore=0 malwarescore=0 clxscore=1015 suspectscore=0 priorityscore=1501 spamscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 phishscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2104060000 definitions=main-2104200053 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_EF, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 07:06:13 -0000 On 4/16/21 3:59 PM, Robin Dapp wrote: > Hi, > > checking for an osc break is somewhat brittle especially with many > passes potentially introducing new insns and moving them around. > Therefore, only run the test with -O1 -fschedule-insns in order to limit > the influence of other passes. Yeah, that's because of the very limited analysis we do in the backend to detect such cases. In fact we probably would want to have an OSC break in many of them as well. For me the testcase appears to work with -O2 on all the -march levels. I think -O2 would be preferred because that's what is most frequently used. > > Is it OK? Yes, either with -O2 or the options you have proposed if -O2 doesn't work out for you. Thanks! Andreas > > Regards > Robin > > -- > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > > * gcc.target/s390/oscbreak-1.c: Compile with -O1 > -fschedule-insns. >