From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pg1-x531.google.com (mail-pg1-x531.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::531]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 873F23858C27 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 04:42:42 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 873F23858C27 Received: by mail-pg1-x531.google.com with SMTP id f5so9657255pgc.12 for ; Sun, 24 Oct 2021 21:42:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:from:to:cc:references:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=W22p+aZhTf8Wne32DMbUplButfyKdBmFGLOfs4Fp/xY=; b=kzlbr2zFkWS9T/gJOfJlpNYPJqECTMy4sJC7yxL5oDOgwSkABHwGSM5uQUuewvd6dd qSbzPPpyxII2xHY+rKrLcl775mU6Gjo3EXdxPRVM+vCGzrWqq21ScpbIaAVd/fvgHlOh ejD69tSRh5J71oAVxOEaGE1bSzVK1jxyl0qq7+SROe4f2BPA7x+Wi0c7FV3VSJFDmk7g YeSgTpSRPdJI9BF3hP0WpBGeZC03N8fRi/eKNYF4hQhMyWemAKSYhU7Ldt0PpMTp2ldb TLp7+DbsHzLG9aOvrNbv+p4TFS4kSLF8M0++m9IEBl5qkZI4BQhHYBRazFE7rnGRatlo eIVQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530EE8UsysPTPEkso8ABa7LWm64L4xIQ8Ycmx6VrtbR6mK3/grZ/ xRnPEPynrHhAAfrUoFKrslk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyoFc9Uu5luzTqqM9HxNVrKdExKR8FmRYMCnwjhNvGlfmnTUggKCGRFdrZKE68h1TI4L2x1tg== X-Received: by 2002:a63:6e03:: with SMTP id j3mr11870290pgc.465.1635136961417; Sun, 24 Oct 2021 21:42:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.31.0.175] (c-98-202-48-222.hsd1.ut.comcast.net. [98.202.48.222]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p9sm16793880pfn.7.2021.10.24.21.42.40 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 24 Oct 2021 21:42:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Convert strlen pass from evrp to ranger. From: Jeff Law To: Aldy Hernandez , Jakub Jelinek Cc: GCC patches , Andrew MacLeod , Richard Biener References: <20211008151222.37790-1-aldyh@redhat.com> <49371bdc-edd7-a5fa-4d75-9b2ed51478ad@gmail.com> <88f397a8-78d1-fe74-c221-e846072edff1@redhat.com> <79d52c18-2e47-8eb4-a586-f5883d731f79@gmail.com> Message-ID: <3ad0e3a1-f075-29e9-1055-38cd76711ab5@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2021 22:42:39 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <79d52c18-2e47-8eb4-a586-f5883d731f79@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, BODY_8BITS, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FREEMAIL_FROM, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) 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: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 04:42:43 -0000 On 10/24/2021 8:15 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > > > On 10/18/2021 2:17 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: >> >> >> On 10/18/21 12:52 AM, Jeff Law wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 10/8/2021 9:12 AM, Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches wrote: >>>> The following patch converts the strlen pass from evrp to ranger, >>>> leaving DOM as the last remaining user. >>> So is there any reason why we can't convert DOM as well? DOM's use >>> of EVRP is pretty limited.  You've mentioned FP bits before, but my >>> recollection is those are not part of the EVRP analysis DOM uses. >>> Hell, give me a little guidance and I'll do the work... >> >> Not only will I take you up on that offer, but I can provide 90% of >> the work.  Here be dragons, though (well, for me, maybe not for you >> ;-)). > [ ... ] > So the failure I see it a bootstrap comparison failure affecting > omp-expand.c and cp/cp-gimplify.c.  We end up generating different > code with and without debug symbols. Replying to myself.... So we're getting different results from a call to fold_range_internal for this statement in bb #35 of expand_omp_target: (gdb) p debug_gimple_stmt (stmt) if (loop_171 != 0B) 259         res = fold_range_internal (r, s, NULL_TREE); (gdb) n 283       if (idx) (gdb) p res $60 = true (gdb) p r $61 = (irange &) @0x7fffffffdb20: {m_num_ranges = 1 '\001',   m_max_ranges = 2 '\002', m_kind = VR_RANGE, m_base = 0x7fffffffdb30} vs 259         res = fold_range_internal (r, s, NULL_TREE); (gdb) 283       if (idx) (gdb) p res $16 = true (gdb) p r $17 = (irange &) @0x7fffffffdba0: {m_num_ranges = 1 '\001', m_max_ranges = 2 '\002', m_kind = VR_VARYING,   m_base = 0x7fffffffdbb0} Anyway, not sure when I'll be able to look at this again, perhaps Wednesday.  But my sense is something isn't right WRT the range of loop_171. Jeff