RE: [PATCH] Fix PR tree-optimization/77654

RE: [PATCH] Fix PR tree-optimization/77654

[Doug Gilmore]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 177 bytes --]

Add missing attachment.

Doug

gcc/
        PR tree-optimization/77654
        * tree-ssa-alias.c (issue_prefetch_ref): Add call
        to duplicate_ssa_name_ptr_info.

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #2: 0002-Ensure-points-to-information-is-maintained-for-prefe.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch; name="0002-Ensure-points-to-information-is-maintained-for-prefe.patch", Size: 1495 bytes --]

From ec9069b7b7b07d5fda9c04aaa9b385fba89a6e16 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Doug Gilmore <doug.gilmore@imgtec.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 10:18:42 -0700
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] Ensure points-to information is maintained for prefetch
 addresses.

---
 gcc/tree-ssa-loop-prefetch.c |   11 +++++++++++
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)

diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-prefetch.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-prefetch.c
index 26cf0a0..10ade186 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-prefetch.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-prefetch.c
@@ -39,6 +39,7 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3.  If not see
 #include "tree-ssa-loop-manip.h"
 #include "tree-ssa-loop-niter.h"
 #include "tree-ssa-loop.h"
+#include "ssa.h"
 #include "tree-into-ssa.h"
 #include "cfgloop.h"
 #include "tree-scalar-evolution.h"
@@ -1160,6 +1161,16 @@ issue_prefetch_ref (struct mem_ref *ref, unsigned unroll_factor, unsigned ahead)
           addr = force_gimple_operand_gsi (&bsi, unshare_expr (addr), true,
 					   NULL, true, GSI_SAME_STMT);
       }
+
+      if (POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (addr_base)))
+	{
+	  duplicate_ssa_name_ptr_info (addr, SSA_NAME_PTR_INFO (addr_base));
+	  /* As this isn't a plain copy we have to reset alignment
+	     information.  */
+	  if (SSA_NAME_PTR_INFO (addr))
+	    mark_ptr_info_alignment_unknown (SSA_NAME_PTR_INFO (addr));
+	}
+
       /* Create the prefetch instruction.  */
       prefetch = gimple_build_call (builtin_decl_explicit (BUILT_IN_PREFETCH),
 				    3, addr, write_p, local);
-- 
1.7.9.5

RE: [PATCH] Fix PR tree-optimization/77654

[Doug Gilmore]

It looks like the original message was dropped, resending.

Doug
________________________________________
From: Doug Gilmore
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 2:12 PM
To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; rguenth@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [PATCH] Fix PR tree-optimization/77654

From:

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77654

Richard Biener wrote:
> Looks good though addr_base should always be a pointer but it might
> not be an SSA name so better check that...

I took a look at other situations where duplicate_ssa_name_ptr_info()
is called and found that there are no checks for the SSA name since
that check is done in duplicate_ssa_name_ptr_info().  Do you still
want the additional check added?

Also does it make sense to make a test case for this?

I was thinking of making the following change to:

diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-alias.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-alias.c
index 8051a66..b799c43 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-ssa-alias.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-alias.c
@@ -296,7 +296,16 @@ ptr_derefs_may_alias_p (tree ptr1, tree ptr2)
   pi1 = SSA_NAME_PTR_INFO (ptr1);
   pi2 = SSA_NAME_PTR_INFO (ptr2);
   if (!pi1 || !pi2)
-    return true;
+    {
+      if (dump_file)
+       {
+         if (! pi1)
+           fprintf (dump_file, "%s pi1 is NULL\n", __FUNCTION__);
+         if (! pi2)
+           fprintf (dump_file, "%s pi2 is NULL\n", __FUNCTION__);
+       }
+      return true;
+    }

Then when compiling the test case, we could scan for the RE
"pi. is NULL" in the dump file created by compiling with -fdump-rtl-sched2.

I attached the original patch.

Thanks,

Doug

gcc/
        PR tree-optimization/77654
        * tree-ssa-alias.c (issue_prefetch_ref): Add call
        to duplicate_ssa_name_ptr_info.

RE: [PATCH] Fix PR tree-optimization/77654

[Richard Biener]

On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Doug Gilmore wrote:

> It looks like the original message was dropped, resending.
> 
> Doug
> ________________________________________
> From: Doug Gilmore
> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 2:12 PM
> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; rguenth@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: [PATCH] Fix PR tree-optimization/77654
> 
> From:
> 
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77654
> 
> Richard Biener wrote:
> > Looks good though addr_base should always be a pointer but it might
> > not be an SSA name so better check that...
> 
> I took a look at other situations where duplicate_ssa_name_ptr_info()
> is called and found that there are no checks for the SSA name since
> that check is done in duplicate_ssa_name_ptr_info().  Do you still
> want the additional check added?

It checks for !ptr_info but it requires NAME to be an SSA name.

From the attachment in bugzilla (the attachment didn't make it
here)

 	
+
+      if (POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (addr_base)))
+	{
+	  duplicate_ssa_name_ptr_info (addr, SSA_NAME_PTR_INFO 
(addr_base));
+	  /* As this isn't a plain copy we have to reset alignment
+	     information.  */
+	  if (SSA_NAME_PTR_INFO (addr))
+	    mark_ptr_info_alignment_unknown (SSA_NAME_PTR_INFO (addr));
+	}
+

I was talking about changing the if to

    if (TREE_CODE (addr_base) == SSA_NAME
        && TREE_CODE (addr) == SSA_NAME)

because the addresses could be invariant as far as I can see.

> Also does it make sense to make a test case for this?

I'm not sure how to easily test this.

Richard.

> I was thinking of making the following change to:
> 
> diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-alias.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-alias.c
> index 8051a66..b799c43 100644
> --- a/gcc/tree-ssa-alias.c
> +++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-alias.c
> @@ -296,7 +296,16 @@ ptr_derefs_may_alias_p (tree ptr1, tree ptr2)
>    pi1 = SSA_NAME_PTR_INFO (ptr1);
>    pi2 = SSA_NAME_PTR_INFO (ptr2);
>    if (!pi1 || !pi2)
> -    return true;
> +    {
> +      if (dump_file)
> +       {
> +         if (! pi1)
> +           fprintf (dump_file, "%s pi1 is NULL\n", __FUNCTION__);
> +         if (! pi2)
> +           fprintf (dump_file, "%s pi2 is NULL\n", __FUNCTION__);
> +       }
> +      return true;
> +    }
> 
> Then when compiling the test case, we could scan for the RE
> "pi. is NULL" in the dump file created by compiling with -fdump-rtl-sched2.
> 
> I attached the original patch.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Doug
> 
> gcc/
>         PR tree-optimization/77654
>         * tree-ssa-alias.c (issue_prefetch_ref): Add call
>         to duplicate_ssa_name_ptr_info.
> 
> 

-- 
Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>
SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nuernberg)

RE: [PATCH] Fix PR tree-optimization/77654

[Doug Gilmore]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2135 bytes --]

> From: Richard Biener [rguenther@suse.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 12:48 AM
> To: Doug Gilmore
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; rguenth@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] Fix PR tree-optimization/77654
> 
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Doug Gilmore wrote:
> 
> > It looks like the original message was dropped, resending.
> >
> > Doug
> > ________________________________________
> > From: Doug Gilmore
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 2:12 PM
> > To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; rguenth@gcc.gnu.org
> > Subject: [PATCH] Fix PR tree-optimization/77654
> >
> > From:
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77654
> >
> > Richard Biener wrote:
> > > Looks good though addr_base should always be a pointer but it might
> > > not be an SSA name so better check that...
> >
> > I took a look at other situations where duplicate_ssa_name_ptr_info()
> > is called and found that there are no checks for the SSA name since
> > that check is done in duplicate_ssa_name_ptr_info().  Do you still
> > want the additional check added?
> 
> It checks for !ptr_info but it requires NAME to be an SSA name.
> 
> From the attachment in bugzilla (the attachment didn't make it
> here)
> 
> 
> +
> +      if (POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (addr_base)))
> +       {
> +         duplicate_ssa_name_ptr_info (addr, SSA_NAME_PTR_INFO (addr_base));
> +         /* As this isn't a plain copy we have to reset alignment
> +            information.  */
> +         if (SSA_NAME_PTR_INFO (addr))
> +           mark_ptr_info_alignment_unknown (SSA_NAME_PTR_INFO (addr));
> +       }
> +
> 
> I was talking about changing the if to
> 
>     if (TREE_CODE (addr_base) == SSA_NAME
>         && TREE_CODE (addr) == SSA_NAME)
Sorry I that missed point.  I glossed your comment "addr_base should
always be a pointer", causing me to go off into the weeds.

New patch attached.

Thanks,

Doug
> 
> because the addresses could be invariant as far as I can see.
> 
> > Also does it make sense to make a test case for this?
> 
> I'm not sure how to easily test this.
> 
> Richard.
> 
> ...

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #2: 0001-Ensure-points-to-information-is-maintained-for-prefe.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch; name="0001-Ensure-points-to-information-is-maintained-for-prefe.patch", Size: 1656 bytes --]

From 2d6cb0674ca66b4c5f6e335d73122e03413863e3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Doug Gilmore <doug.gilmore@imgtec.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 10:18:42 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] Ensure points-to information is maintained for prefetch.

gcc/
        PR tree-optimization/77654
        * tree-ssa-alias.c (issue_prefetch_ref): Add call
        to duplicate_ssa_name_ptr_info.
---
 gcc/tree-ssa-loop-prefetch.c |   12 ++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)

diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-prefetch.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-prefetch.c
index 26cf0a0..d0bd2d3 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-prefetch.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-prefetch.c
@@ -39,6 +39,7 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3.  If not see
 #include "tree-ssa-loop-manip.h"
 #include "tree-ssa-loop-niter.h"
 #include "tree-ssa-loop.h"
+#include "ssa.h"
 #include "tree-into-ssa.h"
 #include "cfgloop.h"
 #include "tree-scalar-evolution.h"
@@ -1160,6 +1161,17 @@ issue_prefetch_ref (struct mem_ref *ref, unsigned unroll_factor, unsigned ahead)
           addr = force_gimple_operand_gsi (&bsi, unshare_expr (addr), true,
 					   NULL, true, GSI_SAME_STMT);
       }
+
+      if (TREE_CODE (addr_base) == SSA_NAME
+          && TREE_CODE (addr) == SSA_NAME)
+	{
+	  duplicate_ssa_name_ptr_info (addr, SSA_NAME_PTR_INFO (addr_base));
+	  /* As this isn't a plain copy we have to reset alignment
+	     information.  */
+	  if (SSA_NAME_PTR_INFO (addr))
+	    mark_ptr_info_alignment_unknown (SSA_NAME_PTR_INFO (addr));
+	}
+
       /* Create the prefetch instruction.  */
       prefetch = gimple_build_call (builtin_decl_explicit (BUILT_IN_PREFETCH),
 				    3, addr, write_p, local);
-- 
1.7.9.5

RE: [PATCH] Fix PR tree-optimization/77654

[Richard Biener]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2016, Doug Gilmore wrote:

> > From: Richard Biener [rguenther@suse.de]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 12:48 AM
> > To: Doug Gilmore
> > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; rguenth@gcc.gnu.org
> > Subject: RE: [PATCH] Fix PR tree-optimization/77654
> > 
> > On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Doug Gilmore wrote:
> > 
> > > It looks like the original message was dropped, resending.
> > >
> > > Doug
> > > ________________________________________
> > > From: Doug Gilmore
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 2:12 PM
> > > To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; rguenth@gcc.gnu.org
> > > Subject: [PATCH] Fix PR tree-optimization/77654
> > >
> > > From:
> > >
> > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77654
> > >
> > > Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > Looks good though addr_base should always be a pointer but it might
> > > > not be an SSA name so better check that...
> > >
> > > I took a look at other situations where duplicate_ssa_name_ptr_info()
> > > is called and found that there are no checks for the SSA name since
> > > that check is done in duplicate_ssa_name_ptr_info().  Do you still
> > > want the additional check added?
> > 
> > It checks for !ptr_info but it requires NAME to be an SSA name.
> > 
> > From the attachment in bugzilla (the attachment didn't make it
> > here)
> > 
> > 
> > +
> > +      if (POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (addr_base)))
> > +       {
> > +         duplicate_ssa_name_ptr_info (addr, SSA_NAME_PTR_INFO (addr_base));
> > +         /* As this isn't a plain copy we have to reset alignment
> > +            information.  */
> > +         if (SSA_NAME_PTR_INFO (addr))
> > +           mark_ptr_info_alignment_unknown (SSA_NAME_PTR_INFO (addr));
> > +       }
> > +
> > 
> > I was talking about changing the if to
> > 
> >     if (TREE_CODE (addr_base) == SSA_NAME
> >         && TREE_CODE (addr) == SSA_NAME)
> Sorry I that missed point.  I glossed your comment "addr_base should
> always be a pointer", causing me to go off into the weeds.
> 
> New patch attached.

Ok if successfully bootstrapped / tested.

Thanks,
Richard.

> Thanks,
> 
> Doug
> > 
> > because the addresses could be invariant as far as I can see.
> > 
> > > Also does it make sense to make a test case for this?
> > 
> > I'm not sure how to easily test this.
> > 
> > Richard.
> > 
> > ...
> 

-- 
Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>
SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nuernberg)

RE: [PATCH] Fix PR tree-optimization/77654

[Doug Gilmore]

> From: Richard Biener [rguenther@suse.de]
> Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 12:43 AM
> To: Doug Gilmore
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; rguenth@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] Fix PR tree-optimization/77654
> 
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2016, Doug Gilmore wrote:
> 
> ...
> > Sorry I that missed point.  I glossed your comment "addr_base should
> > always be a pointer", causing me to go off into the weeds.
> >
> > New patch attached.
> 
> Ok if successfully bootstrapped / tested.
> 
> Thanks,
> Richard.
The change bootstrapped on X86_64 and the several "make check" errors
also appeared in latest archived mail message to gcc-testresults.

Thanks,
Doug
> 
> > ...

RE: [PATCH] Fix PR tree-optimization/77654

[Matthew Fortune]

Doug Gilmore <Doug.Gilmore@imgtec.com> writes:
> > From: Richard Biener [rguenther@suse.de]
> > Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 12:43 AM
> > To: Doug Gilmore
> > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; rguenth@gcc.gnu.org
> > Subject: RE: [PATCH] Fix PR tree-optimization/77654
> >
> > On Wed, 21 Sep 2016, Doug Gilmore wrote:
> >
> > ...
> > > Sorry I that missed point.  I glossed your comment "addr_base should
> > > always be a pointer", causing me to go off into the weeds.
> > >
> > > New patch attached.
> >
> > Ok if successfully bootstrapped / tested.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Richard.
> The change bootstrapped on X86_64 and the several "make check" errors
> also appeared in latest archived mail message to gcc-testresults.

Committed as r240439.

(Fixed whitespace/tab issue in the code and incorrect file in changelog)

I can't progress the bug status. Who does that normally?

Matthew

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR tree-optimization/77654

[Mike Stump]

On Sep 23, 2016, at 8:55 AM, Matthew Fortune <Matthew.Fortune@imgtec.com> wrote:
> 
> Doug Gilmore <Doug.Gilmore@imgtec.com> writes:
>>> From: Richard Biener [rguenther@suse.de]
>>> Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 12:43 AM
>>> To: Doug Gilmore
>>> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; rguenth@gcc.gnu.org
>>> Subject: RE: [PATCH] Fix PR tree-optimization/77654
>>> 
>>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2016, Doug Gilmore wrote:
>>> 
>>> ...
>>>> Sorry I that missed point.  I glossed your comment "addr_base should
>>>> always be a pointer", causing me to go off into the weeds.
>>>> 
>>>> New patch attached.
>>> 
>>> Ok if successfully bootstrapped / tested.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Richard.
>> The change bootstrapped on X86_64 and the several "make check" errors
>> also appeared in latest archived mail message to gcc-testresults.
> 
> Committed as r240439.
> 
> (Fixed whitespace/tab issue in the code and incorrect file in changelog)
> 
> I can't progress the bug status. Who does that normally?

Hum..  not sure why, I thought commit people could do bug database bits.  Maybe someone will chime in on this topic for you.

Anyway, anyone can move the bug along, just let us know what state change you want.  I've assumed Fixed. was the state change you were interested in.  I've done that.

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR tree-optimization/77654

[Richard Biener]

On September 23, 2016 6:17:17 PM GMT+02:00, Mike Stump <mikestump@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Sep 23, 2016, at 8:55 AM, Matthew Fortune
><Matthew.Fortune@imgtec.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Doug Gilmore <Doug.Gilmore@imgtec.com> writes:
>>>> From: Richard Biener [rguenther@suse.de]
>>>> Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 12:43 AM
>>>> To: Doug Gilmore
>>>> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; rguenth@gcc.gnu.org
>>>> Subject: RE: [PATCH] Fix PR tree-optimization/77654
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2016, Doug Gilmore wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> ...
>>>>> Sorry I that missed point.  I glossed your comment "addr_base
>should
>>>>> always be a pointer", causing me to go off into the weeds.
>>>>> 
>>>>> New patch attached.
>>>> 
>>>> Ok if successfully bootstrapped / tested.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Richard.
>>> The change bootstrapped on X86_64 and the several "make check"
>errors
>>> also appeared in latest archived mail message to gcc-testresults.
>> 
>> Committed as r240439.
>> 
>> (Fixed whitespace/tab issue in the code and incorrect file in
>changelog)
>> 
>> I can't progress the bug status. Who does that normally?
>
>Hum..  not sure why, I thought commit people could do bug database
>bits.  Maybe someone will chime in on this topic for you.

You need to use a bugzilla account with your @gcc.gnu.org address.  Those have appropriate permissions.

Richard.

>Anyway, anyone can move the bug along, just let us know what state
>change you want.  I've assumed Fixed. was the state change you were
>interested in.  I've done that.

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR tree-optimization/77654

[Christophe Lyon]

On 23 September 2016 at 17:55, Matthew Fortune
<Matthew.Fortune@imgtec.com> wrote:
> Doug Gilmore <Doug.Gilmore@imgtec.com> writes:
>> > From: Richard Biener [rguenther@suse.de]
>> > Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 12:43 AM
>> > To: Doug Gilmore
>> > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; rguenth@gcc.gnu.org
>> > Subject: RE: [PATCH] Fix PR tree-optimization/77654
>> >
>> > On Wed, 21 Sep 2016, Doug Gilmore wrote:
>> >
>> > ...
>> > > Sorry I that missed point.  I glossed your comment "addr_base should
>> > > always be a pointer", causing me to go off into the weeds.
>> > >
>> > > New patch attached.
>> >
>> > Ok if successfully bootstrapped / tested.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Richard.
>> The change bootstrapped on X86_64 and the several "make check" errors
>> also appeared in latest archived mail message to gcc-testresults.
>
> Committed as r240439.
>

Since this commit, I've noticed ICE on arm target:
FAIL: gcc.dg/params/blocksort-part.c -O3 --param prefetch-latency=0
(internal compiler error)
FAIL: gcc.dg/params/blocksort-part.c -O3 --param prefetch-latency=0
(test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
/aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/params/blocksort-part.c:116:6:
internal compiler error: in duplicate
_ssa_name_ptr_info, at tree-ssanames.c:630
0xd5a972 duplicate_ssa_name_ptr_info(tree_node*, ptr_info_def*)
        /aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/tree-ssanames.c:630
0xcac0e0 issue_prefetch_ref
        /aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-prefetch.c:1168
0xcad89f issue_prefetches
        /aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-prefetch.c:1195
0xcad89f loop_prefetch_arrays
        /aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-prefetch.c:1928
0xcae722 tree_ssa_prefetch_arrays()
        /aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-prefetch.c:1992


--target arm-none-linux-gnueabihf --with-cpu=cortex-a9
--wihth-fpu=neon-fp16 --with-mode=arm

I'm not sure the cpu/fpu/mode settings are mandatory but at least in this case
the compiler ICEs.

Christophe


> (Fixed whitespace/tab issue in the code and incorrect file in changelog)
>
> I can't progress the bug status. Who does that normally?
>
> Matthew

RE: [PATCH] Fix PR tree-optimization/77654

[Doug Gilmore]

> From: Christophe Lyon [christophe.lyon@linaro.org]
> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 12:17 PM
> To: Matthew Fortune
> Cc: Doug Gilmore; Richard Biener; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; rguenth@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix PR tree-optimization/77654
> ...
> 
> Since this commit, I've noticed ICE on arm target:
> FAIL: gcc.dg/params/blocksort-part.c -O3 --param prefetch-latency=0
> (internal compiler error)
> FAIL: gcc.dg/params/blocksort-part.c -O3 --param prefetch-latency=0
> (test for excess errors)
> Excess errors:
> /aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/params/blocksort-part.c:116:6:
> internal compiler error: in duplicate
> _ssa_name_ptr_info, at tree-ssanames.c:630
> 0xd5a972 duplicate_ssa_name_ptr_info(tree_node*, ptr_info_def*)
>         /aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/tree-ssanames.c:630
> 0xcac0e0 issue_prefetch_ref
>         /aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-prefetch.c:1168
> 0xcad89f issue_prefetches
>         /aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-prefetch.c:1195
> 0xcad89f loop_prefetch_arrays
>         /aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-prefetch.c:1928
> 0xcae722 tree_ssa_prefetch_arrays()
>         /aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-prefetch.c:1992
> 
> 
> --target arm-none-linux-gnueabihf --with-cpu=cortex-a9
> --wihth-fpu=neon-fp16 --with-mode=arm
> 
> I'm not sure the cpu/fpu/mode settings are mandatory but at least in this case
> the compiler ICEs.
> 
> Christophe
I'll look into this.

Doug
> 
> 
> > (Fixed whitespace/tab issue in the code and incorrect file in changelog)
> >
> > I can't progress the bug status. Who does that normally?
> >
> > Matthew

RE: [PATCH] Fix PR tree-optimization/77654

[Doug Gilmore]

> From: Christophe Lyon [christophe.lyon@linaro.org]
> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 12:17 PM
> To: Matthew Fortune
> Cc: Doug Gilmore; Richard Biener; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; rguenth@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix PR tree-optimization/77654
> 
> On 23 September 2016 at 17:55, Matthew Fortune
> <Matthew.Fortune@imgtec.com> wrote:
> > Doug Gilmore <Doug.Gilmore@imgtec.com> writes:
> >> > From: Richard Biener [rguenther@suse.de]
> >> > Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 12:43 AM
> >> > To: Doug Gilmore
> >> > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; rguenth@gcc.gnu.org
> >> > Subject: RE: [PATCH] Fix PR tree-optimization/77654
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, 21 Sep 2016, Doug Gilmore wrote:
> >> >
> >> > ...
> >> > > Sorry I that missed point.  I glossed your comment "addr_base should
> >> > > always be a pointer", causing me to go off into the weeds.
> >> > >
> >> > > New patch attached.
> >> >
> >> > Ok if successfully bootstrapped / tested.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Richard.
> >> The change bootstrapped on X86_64 and the several "make check" errors
> >> also appeared in latest archived mail message to gcc-testresults.
> >
> > Committed as r240439.
> >
> 
> Since this commit, I've noticed ICE on arm target:
> FAIL: gcc.dg/params/blocksort-part.c -O3 --param prefetch-latency=0
> (internal compiler error)
> FAIL: gcc.dg/params/blocksort-part.c -O3 --param prefetch-latency=0
> (test for excess errors)
> Excess errors:
> /aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/params/blocksort-part.c:116:6:
> internal compiler error: in duplicate
> _ssa_name_ptr_info, at tree-ssanames.c:630
> ...
Hi Christophe,

I filed PR77808, will send out a fix shortly.

BTW, I missed this in regression testing since -fprefetch-loop-arrays
is needed to expose the problem.  Are you setting this as the default
in your compiler build?

Thanks,

Doug

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR tree-optimization/77654

[Christophe Lyon]

On 30 September 2016 at 20:10, Doug Gilmore <Doug.Gilmore@imgtec.com> wrote:
>> From: Christophe Lyon [christophe.lyon@linaro.org]
>> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 12:17 PM
>> To: Matthew Fortune
>> Cc: Doug Gilmore; Richard Biener; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; rguenth@gcc.gnu.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix PR tree-optimization/77654
>>
>> On 23 September 2016 at 17:55, Matthew Fortune
>> <Matthew.Fortune@imgtec.com> wrote:
>> > Doug Gilmore <Doug.Gilmore@imgtec.com> writes:
>> >> > From: Richard Biener [rguenther@suse.de]
>> >> > Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 12:43 AM
>> >> > To: Doug Gilmore
>> >> > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; rguenth@gcc.gnu.org
>> >> > Subject: RE: [PATCH] Fix PR tree-optimization/77654
>> >> >
>> >> > On Wed, 21 Sep 2016, Doug Gilmore wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > ...
>> >> > > Sorry I that missed point.  I glossed your comment "addr_base should
>> >> > > always be a pointer", causing me to go off into the weeds.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > New patch attached.
>> >> >
>> >> > Ok if successfully bootstrapped / tested.
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks,
>> >> > Richard.
>> >> The change bootstrapped on X86_64 and the several "make check" errors
>> >> also appeared in latest archived mail message to gcc-testresults.
>> >
>> > Committed as r240439.
>> >
>>
>> Since this commit, I've noticed ICE on arm target:
>> FAIL: gcc.dg/params/blocksort-part.c -O3 --param prefetch-latency=0
>> (internal compiler error)
>> FAIL: gcc.dg/params/blocksort-part.c -O3 --param prefetch-latency=0
>> (test for excess errors)
>> Excess errors:
>> /aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dREMOTE_SNAPSHOTS=g/params/blocksort-part.c:116:6:
>> internal compiler error: in duplicate
>> _ssa_name_ptr_info, at tree-ssanames.c:630
>> ...
> Hi Christophe,
>
> I filed PR77808, will send out a fix shortly.
>
Thanks

> BTW, I missed this in regression testing since -fprefetch-loop-arrays
> is needed to expose the problem.  Are you setting this as the default
> in your compiler build?
>
No, I did not do anything special.
I'm not sure to understand: this option is not in the command line
of the offending test.

Christophe

> Thanks,
>
> Doug