[backport gcc10, gcc9] Requet to backport PR97969

[backport gcc10, gcc9] Requet to backport PR97969

[Przemyslaw Wirkus]

Hi all,

Can we backport PR97969 patch to GCC 10 and (maybe) GCC 9 ?:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97969

IMHO bug is severe and could land in GCC 10 and 9. Vladimir's original patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-January/563322.html
applies without changes to both gcc-10 and gcc-9.

I've regression tested this patch on both gcc-10 and gcc-9 branched for
x86_64 cross (arm-eabi target) and no issues.

OK for gcc-10 and gcc-9 ?

PS: I can commit if approved.

Kind regards,
Przemyslaw Wirkus

Re: [backport gcc10, gcc9] Requet to backport PR97969

[Richard Biener]

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021, Przemyslaw Wirkus wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> Can we backport PR97969 patch to GCC 10 and (maybe) GCC 9 ?:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97969
> 
> IMHO bug is severe and could land in GCC 10 and 9. Vladimir's original patch:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-January/563322.html
> applies without changes to both gcc-10 and gcc-9.
> 
> I've regression tested this patch on both gcc-10 and gcc-9 branched for
> x86_64 cross (arm-eabi target) and no issues.
> 
> OK for gcc-10 and gcc-9 ?

I see two fallout PRs with a trivial search: PR98643 and PR98722.  LRA
patches quite easily trigger unexpected fallout unfortunately ...

Richard.

> PS: I can commit if approved.
> 
> Kind regards,
> Przemyslaw Wirkus
> 
> 

-- 
Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Maxfeldstrasse 5, 90409 Nuernberg,
Germany; GF: Felix Imendörffer; HRB 36809 (AG Nuernberg)

Re: [backport gcc10, gcc9] Requet to backport PR97969

[Vladimir Makarov]

On 2021-01-18 7:50 a.m., Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2021, Przemyslaw Wirkus wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Can we backport PR97969 patch to GCC 10 and (maybe) GCC 9 ?:
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97969
>>
>> IMHO bug is severe and could land in GCC 10 and 9. Vladimir's original patch:
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-January/563322.html
>> applies without changes to both gcc-10 and gcc-9.
>>
>> I've regression tested this patch on both gcc-10 and gcc-9 branched for
>> x86_64 cross (arm-eabi target) and no issues.
>>
>> OK for gcc-10 and gcc-9 ?
> I see two fallout PRs with a trivial search: PR98643 and PR98722.  LRA
> patches quite easily trigger unexpected fallout unfortunately ...
>
Yes, I am agree.  We should wait until the new regressions are fixed.  I 
am going to work on this patch more to fix the new regressions.  
Although the basic idea of the original problem solution probably will 
stay the same.
>> PS: I can commit if approved.
>>

RE: [backport gcc10, gcc9] Requet to backport PR97969

[Przemyslaw Wirkus]

> On 2021-01-18 7:50 a.m., Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Jan 2021, Przemyslaw Wirkus wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Can we backport PR97969 patch to GCC 10 and (maybe) GCC 9 ?:
> >> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97969
> >>
> >> IMHO bug is severe and could land in GCC 10 and 9. Vladimir's original
> patch:
> >> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-January/563322.html
> >> applies without changes to both gcc-10 and gcc-9.
> >>
> >> I've regression tested this patch on both gcc-10 and gcc-9 branched
> >> for
> >> x86_64 cross (arm-eabi target) and no issues.
> >>
> >> OK for gcc-10 and gcc-9 ?
> > I see two fallout PRs with a trivial search: PR98643 and PR98722.  LRA
> > patches quite easily trigger unexpected fallout unfortunately ...
> >
> Yes, I am agree.  We should wait until the new regressions are fixed.  I am
> going to work on this patch more to fix the new regressions. Although the
> basic idea of the original problem solution probably will stay the same.

I've retested series of three patches which are related to this PR:

19af25c0b3aa2a78b4d45d295359ec26cb9fc607 [PR98777]
79c57603602c4493b6baa1d47ed451e8f5e9c0f3 [PR98722]
34aa56af2547e1646c0f07b9b88b210ebdb2a9f5 [PR97969]

on top of gcc-10 branch.

Bootstrapped and regression tested on aarch64-linux-gnu machine and no issues.
Regression tested on x86_64 host (arm-eabi target) cross and no issues.

OK for gcc-10 ?

> >> PS: I can commit if approved.
> >>

RE: [backport gcc10, gcc9] Requet to backport PR97969

[Richard Biener]

On Tue, 2 Feb 2021, Przemyslaw Wirkus wrote:

> > On 2021-01-18 7:50 a.m., Richard Biener wrote:
> > > On Mon, 18 Jan 2021, Przemyslaw Wirkus wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi all,
> > >>
> > >> Can we backport PR97969 patch to GCC 10 and (maybe) GCC 9 ?:
> > >> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97969
> > >>
> > >> IMHO bug is severe and could land in GCC 10 and 9. Vladimir's original
> > patch:
> > >> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-January/563322.html
> > >> applies without changes to both gcc-10 and gcc-9.
> > >>
> > >> I've regression tested this patch on both gcc-10 and gcc-9 branched
> > >> for
> > >> x86_64 cross (arm-eabi target) and no issues.
> > >>
> > >> OK for gcc-10 and gcc-9 ?
> > > I see two fallout PRs with a trivial search: PR98643 and PR98722.  LRA
> > > patches quite easily trigger unexpected fallout unfortunately ...
> > >
> > Yes, I am agree.  We should wait until the new regressions are fixed.  I am
> > going to work on this patch more to fix the new regressions. Although the
> > basic idea of the original problem solution probably will stay the same.
> 
> I've retested series of three patches which are related to this PR:
> 
> 19af25c0b3aa2a78b4d45d295359ec26cb9fc607 [PR98777]
> 79c57603602c4493b6baa1d47ed451e8f5e9c0f3 [PR98722]
> 34aa56af2547e1646c0f07b9b88b210ebdb2a9f5 [PR97969]
> 
> on top of gcc-10 branch.
> 
> Bootstrapped and regression tested on aarch64-linux-gnu machine and no issues.
> Regression tested on x86_64 host (arm-eabi target) cross and no issues.
> 
> OK for gcc-10 ?

I think this warrants waiting until at least the GCC 11 release.

Richard.

RE: [backport gcc10, gcc9] Requet to backport PR97969

[Przemyslaw Wirkus]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>
> Sent: 02 February 2021 10:08
> To: Przemyslaw Wirkus <Przemyslaw.Wirkus@arm.com>
> Cc: Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com>; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org;
> jakub@redhat.com; nickc@redhat.com; Richard Earnshaw
> <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>; Ramana Radhakrishnan
> <Ramana.Radhakrishnan@arm.com>; Kyrylo Tkachov
> <Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com>
> Subject: RE: [backport gcc10, gcc9] Requet to backport PR97969
> 
> On Tue, 2 Feb 2021, Przemyslaw Wirkus wrote:
> 
> > > On 2021-01-18 7:50 a.m., Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 18 Jan 2021, Przemyslaw Wirkus wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi all,
> > > >>
> > > >> Can we backport PR97969 patch to GCC 10 and (maybe) GCC 9 ?:
> > > >> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97969
> > > >>
> > > >> IMHO bug is severe and could land in GCC 10 and 9. Vladimir's
> > > >> original
> > > patch:
> > > >> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-January/563322.htm
> > > >> l applies without changes to both gcc-10 and gcc-9.
> > > >>
> > > >> I've regression tested this patch on both gcc-10 and gcc-9
> > > >> branched for
> > > >> x86_64 cross (arm-eabi target) and no issues.
> > > >>
> > > >> OK for gcc-10 and gcc-9 ?
> > > > I see two fallout PRs with a trivial search: PR98643 and PR98722.
> > > > LRA patches quite easily trigger unexpected fallout unfortunately ...
> > > >
> > > Yes, I am agree.  We should wait until the new regressions are
> > > fixed.  I am going to work on this patch more to fix the new
> > > regressions.� Although the basic idea of the original problem solution
> probably will stay the same.
> >
> > I've retested series of three patches which are related to this PR:
> >
> > 19af25c0b3aa2a78b4d45d295359ec26cb9fc607 [PR98777]
> > 79c57603602c4493b6baa1d47ed451e8f5e9c0f3 [PR98722]
> > 34aa56af2547e1646c0f07b9b88b210ebdb2a9f5 [PR97969]
> >
> > on top of gcc-10 branch.
> >
> > Bootstrapped and regression tested on aarch64-linux-gnu machine and no
> issues.
> > Regression tested on x86_64 host (arm-eabi target) cross and no issues.
> >
> > OK for gcc-10 ?
> 
> I think this warrants waiting until at least the GCC 11 release.

Hi,
Just a follow up after GCC 11 release.

I've backported to gcc-10 branch (without any change to original patches)
PR97969 and following PR98722 & PR98777 patches.

Commits apply cleanly without changes.
Built and regression tested on:
* arm-none-eabi and
* aarch64-none-linux-gnu cross toolchains.

There were no issues and no regressions (all OK).

OK for backport to gcc-10 branch ?

Kind regards,
Przemyslaw Wirkus

---
commits I've backported:

commit cf2ac1c30af0fa783c8d72e527904dda5d8cc330
Author: Vladimir N. Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue Jan 12 11:26:15 2021 -0500

    [PR97969] LRA: Transform pattern `plus (plus (hard reg, const), pseudo)` after elimination

commit 4334b524274203125193a08a8485250c41c2daa9
Author: Vladimir N. Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed Jan 20 11:40:14 2021 -0500

    [PR98722] LRA: Check that target has no 3-op add insn to transform 2 plus expression.

commit 68ba1039c7daf0485b167fe199ed7e8031158091
Author: Vladimir N. Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu Jan 21 17:27:01 2021 -0500

    [PR98777] LRA: Use preliminary created pseudo for in LRA elimination subpass

$ ./contrib/git-backport.py cf2ac1c30af0fa783c8d72e527904dda5d8cc330
$ ./contrib/git-backport.py 4334b524274203125193a08a8485250c41c2daa9
$ ./contrib/git-backport.py 68ba1039c7daf0485b167fe199ed7e8031158091


> Richard.

Re: [backport gcc10, gcc9] Requet to backport PR97969

[Vladimir Makarov]

On 2021-05-25 5:14 a.m., Przemyslaw Wirkus wrote:
> Hi,
> Just a follow up after GCC 11 release.
>
> I've backported to gcc-10 branch (without any change to original patches)
> PR97969 and following PR98722 & PR98777 patches.
>
> Commits apply cleanly without changes.
> Built and regression tested on:
> * arm-none-eabi and
> * aarch64-none-linux-gnu cross toolchains.
>
> There were no issues and no regressions (all OK).
>
> OK for backport to gcc-10 branch ?

Sorry for delay with the answer due to my vacation.

As the patches did not introduce new PRs I believe they are ok for gcc-10.

Thank you.

>
> Kind regards,
> Przemyslaw Wirkus
>
> ---
> commits I've backported:
>
> commit cf2ac1c30af0fa783c8d72e527904dda5d8cc330
> Author: Vladimir N. Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com>
> Date:   Tue Jan 12 11:26:15 2021 -0500
>
>      [PR97969] LRA: Transform pattern `plus (plus (hard reg, const), pseudo)` after elimination
>
> commit 4334b524274203125193a08a8485250c41c2daa9
> Author: Vladimir N. Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com>
> Date:   Wed Jan 20 11:40:14 2021 -0500
>
>      [PR98722] LRA: Check that target has no 3-op add insn to transform 2 plus expression.
>
> commit 68ba1039c7daf0485b167fe199ed7e8031158091
> Author: Vladimir N. Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com>
> Date:   Thu Jan 21 17:27:01 2021 -0500
>
>      [PR98777] LRA: Use preliminary created pseudo for in LRA elimination subpass
>
> $ ./contrib/git-backport.py cf2ac1c30af0fa783c8d72e527904dda5d8cc330
> $ ./contrib/git-backport.py 4334b524274203125193a08a8485250c41c2daa9
> $ ./contrib/git-backport.py 68ba1039c7daf0485b167fe199ed7e8031158091
>
>
>> Richard.

RE: [backport gcc10, gcc9] Requet to backport PR97969

[Przemyslaw Wirkus]

Hi,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com>
> Sent: 31 May 2021 16:52
> To: Przemyslaw Wirkus <Przemyslaw.Wirkus@arm.com>; Richard Biener
> <rguenther@suse.de>
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; jakub@redhat.com; nickc@redhat.com;
> Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>; Ramana Radhakrishnan
> <Ramana.Radhakrishnan@arm.com>; Kyrylo Tkachov
> <Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com>
> Subject: Re: [backport gcc10, gcc9] Requet to backport PR97969
> 
> 
> On 2021-05-25 5:14 a.m., Przemyslaw Wirkus wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Just a follow up after GCC 11 release.
> >
> > I've backported to gcc-10 branch (without any change to original patches)
> > PR97969 and following PR98722 & PR98777 patches.
> >
> > Commits apply cleanly without changes.
> > Built and regression tested on:
> > * arm-none-eabi and
> > * aarch64-none-linux-gnu cross toolchains.
> >
> > There were no issues and no regressions (all OK).
> >
> > OK for backport to gcc-10 branch ?
> 
> Sorry for delay with the answer due to my vacation.
> 
> As the patches did not introduce new PRs I believe they are ok for gcc-10.

Backported to gcc-10 branch. Thank you for your support.

Kind regards
Przemyslaw

> Thank you.
> 
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Przemyslaw Wirkus
> >
> > ---
> > commits I've backported:
> >
> > commit cf2ac1c30af0fa783c8d72e527904dda5d8cc330
> > Author: Vladimir N. Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com>
> > Date:   Tue Jan 12 11:26:15 2021 -0500
> >
> >      [PR97969] LRA: Transform pattern `plus (plus (hard reg, const), pseudo)`
> after elimination
> >
> > commit 4334b524274203125193a08a8485250c41c2daa9
> > Author: Vladimir N. Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com>
> > Date:   Wed Jan 20 11:40:14 2021 -0500
> >
> >      [PR98722] LRA: Check that target has no 3-op add insn to transform 2
> plus expression.
> >
> > commit 68ba1039c7daf0485b167fe199ed7e8031158091
> > Author: Vladimir N. Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com>
> > Date:   Thu Jan 21 17:27:01 2021 -0500
> >
> >      [PR98777] LRA: Use preliminary created pseudo for in LRA elimination
> subpass
> >
> > $ ./contrib/git-backport.py cf2ac1c30af0fa783c8d72e527904dda5d8cc330
> > $ ./contrib/git-backport.py 4334b524274203125193a08a8485250c41c2daa9
> > $ ./contrib/git-backport.py 68ba1039c7daf0485b167fe199ed7e8031158091
> >
> >
> >> Richard.

Re: [backport gcc10, gcc9] Requet to backport PR97969

[Christophe Lyon]

On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 at 00:31, Przemyslaw Wirkus via Gcc-patches
<gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com>
> > Sent: 31 May 2021 16:52
> > To: Przemyslaw Wirkus <Przemyslaw.Wirkus@arm.com>; Richard Biener
> > <rguenther@suse.de>
> > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; jakub@redhat.com; nickc@redhat.com;
> > Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>; Ramana Radhakrishnan
> > <Ramana.Radhakrishnan@arm.com>; Kyrylo Tkachov
> > <Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com>
> > Subject: Re: [backport gcc10, gcc9] Requet to backport PR97969
> >
> >
> > On 2021-05-25 5:14 a.m., Przemyslaw Wirkus wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > Just a follow up after GCC 11 release.
> > >
> > > I've backported to gcc-10 branch (without any change to original patches)
> > > PR97969 and following PR98722 & PR98777 patches.
> > >
> > > Commits apply cleanly without changes.
> > > Built and regression tested on:
> > > * arm-none-eabi and
> > > * aarch64-none-linux-gnu cross toolchains.
> > >
> > > There were no issues and no regressions (all OK).
> > >
> > > OK for backport to gcc-10 branch ?
> >
> > Sorry for delay with the answer due to my vacation.
> >
> > As the patches did not introduce new PRs I believe they are ok for gcc-10.
>
> Backported to gcc-10 branch. Thank you for your support.
>

Hi,

I'm surprised to see many new errors on arm after the backport for PR98722
See: https://people.linaro.org/~christophe.lyon/cross-validation/gcc/gcc-10/r10-9881-g1791b11d9cae388ae18a768eeb96c998439c986a/report-build-info.html

Przemyslaw, Vladimir do you confirm r10-9881 has no such errors (new
ICEs) on your side?

Thanks

> Kind regards
> Przemyslaw
>
> > Thank you.
> >
> > >
> > > Kind regards,
> > > Przemyslaw Wirkus
> > >
> > > ---
> > > commits I've backported:
> > >
> > > commit cf2ac1c30af0fa783c8d72e527904dda5d8cc330
> > > Author: Vladimir N. Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com>
> > > Date:   Tue Jan 12 11:26:15 2021 -0500
> > >
> > >      [PR97969] LRA: Transform pattern `plus (plus (hard reg, const), pseudo)`
> > after elimination
> > >
> > > commit 4334b524274203125193a08a8485250c41c2daa9
> > > Author: Vladimir N. Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com>
> > > Date:   Wed Jan 20 11:40:14 2021 -0500
> > >
> > >      [PR98722] LRA: Check that target has no 3-op add insn to transform 2
> > plus expression.
> > >
> > > commit 68ba1039c7daf0485b167fe199ed7e8031158091
> > > Author: Vladimir N. Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com>
> > > Date:   Thu Jan 21 17:27:01 2021 -0500
> > >
> > >      [PR98777] LRA: Use preliminary created pseudo for in LRA elimination
> > subpass
> > >
> > > $ ./contrib/git-backport.py cf2ac1c30af0fa783c8d72e527904dda5d8cc330
> > > $ ./contrib/git-backport.py 4334b524274203125193a08a8485250c41c2daa9
> > > $ ./contrib/git-backport.py 68ba1039c7daf0485b167fe199ed7e8031158091
> > >
> > >
> > >> Richard.
>

RE: [backport gcc10, gcc9] Requet to backport PR97969

[Przemyslaw Wirkus]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org>
> Sent: 03 June 2021 09:45
> To: Przemyslaw Wirkus <Przemyslaw.Wirkus@arm.com>
> Cc: Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com>; jakub@redhat.com; Richard
> Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>; Richard Biener
> <rguenther@suse.de>; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Ramana Radhakrishnan
> <Ramana.Radhakrishnan@arm.com>
> Subject: Re: [backport gcc10, gcc9] Requet to backport PR97969
> 
> On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 at 00:31, Przemyslaw Wirkus via Gcc-patches <gcc-
> patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com>
> > > Sent: 31 May 2021 16:52
> > > To: Przemyslaw Wirkus <Przemyslaw.Wirkus@arm.com>; Richard Biener
> > > <rguenther@suse.de>
> > > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; jakub@redhat.com; nickc@redhat.com;
> > > Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>; Ramana
> Radhakrishnan
> > > <Ramana.Radhakrishnan@arm.com>; Kyrylo Tkachov
> > > <Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com>
> > > Subject: Re: [backport gcc10, gcc9] Requet to backport PR97969
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2021-05-25 5:14 a.m., Przemyslaw Wirkus wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > Just a follow up after GCC 11 release.
> > > >
> > > > I've backported to gcc-10 branch (without any change to original
> > > > patches)
> > > > PR97969 and following PR98722 & PR98777 patches.
> > > >
> > > > Commits apply cleanly without changes.
> > > > Built and regression tested on:
> > > > * arm-none-eabi and
> > > > * aarch64-none-linux-gnu cross toolchains.
> > > >
> > > > There were no issues and no regressions (all OK).
> > > >
> > > > OK for backport to gcc-10 branch ?
> > >
> > > Sorry for delay with the answer due to my vacation.
> > >
> > > As the patches did not introduce new PRs I believe they are ok for gcc-10.
> >
> > Backported to gcc-10 branch. Thank you for your support.
> >
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I'm surprised to see many new errors on arm after the backport for PR98722
> See: https://people.linaro.org/~christophe.lyon/cross-validation/gcc/gcc-
> 10/r10-9881-g1791b11d9cae388ae18a768eeb96c998439c986a/report-build-
> info.html
> 
> Przemyslaw, Vladimir do you confirm r10-9881 has no such errors (new
> ICEs) on your side?

Apologies.

I've built and regtested before submitting backport yesterday.
I will check on my side and build one of your failing configurations.

Przemyslaw

> Thanks
> 
> > Kind regards
> > Przemyslaw
> >
> > > Thank you.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Kind regards,
> > > > Przemyslaw Wirkus
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > commits I've backported:
> > > >
> > > > commit cf2ac1c30af0fa783c8d72e527904dda5d8cc330
> > > > Author: Vladimir N. Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com>
> > > > Date:   Tue Jan 12 11:26:15 2021 -0500
> > > >
> > > >      [PR97969] LRA: Transform pattern `plus (plus (hard reg,
> > > > const), pseudo)`
> > > after elimination
> > > >
> > > > commit 4334b524274203125193a08a8485250c41c2daa9
> > > > Author: Vladimir N. Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com>
> > > > Date:   Wed Jan 20 11:40:14 2021 -0500
> > > >
> > > >      [PR98722] LRA: Check that target has no 3-op add insn to
> > > > transform 2
> > > plus expression.
> > > >
> > > > commit 68ba1039c7daf0485b167fe199ed7e8031158091
> > > > Author: Vladimir N. Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com>
> > > > Date:   Thu Jan 21 17:27:01 2021 -0500
> > > >
> > > >      [PR98777] LRA: Use preliminary created pseudo for in LRA
> > > > elimination
> > > subpass
> > > >
> > > > $ ./contrib/git-backport.py
> > > > cf2ac1c30af0fa783c8d72e527904dda5d8cc330
> > > > $ ./contrib/git-backport.py
> > > > 4334b524274203125193a08a8485250c41c2daa9
> > > > $ ./contrib/git-backport.py
> > > > 68ba1039c7daf0485b167fe199ed7e8031158091
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> Richard.
> >

Re: [backport gcc10, gcc9] Requet to backport PR97969

[Christophe Lyon]

On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 at 10:54, Przemyslaw Wirkus
<Przemyslaw.Wirkus@arm.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org>
> > Sent: 03 June 2021 09:45
> > To: Przemyslaw Wirkus <Przemyslaw.Wirkus@arm.com>
> > Cc: Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com>; jakub@redhat.com; Richard
> > Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>; Richard Biener
> > <rguenther@suse.de>; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Ramana Radhakrishnan
> > <Ramana.Radhakrishnan@arm.com>
> > Subject: Re: [backport gcc10, gcc9] Requet to backport PR97969
> >
> > On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 at 00:31, Przemyslaw Wirkus via Gcc-patches <gcc-
> > patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com>
> > > > Sent: 31 May 2021 16:52
> > > > To: Przemyslaw Wirkus <Przemyslaw.Wirkus@arm.com>; Richard Biener
> > > > <rguenther@suse.de>
> > > > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; jakub@redhat.com; nickc@redhat.com;
> > > > Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>; Ramana
> > Radhakrishnan
> > > > <Ramana.Radhakrishnan@arm.com>; Kyrylo Tkachov
> > > > <Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com>
> > > > Subject: Re: [backport gcc10, gcc9] Requet to backport PR97969
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 2021-05-25 5:14 a.m., Przemyslaw Wirkus wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > > Just a follow up after GCC 11 release.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've backported to gcc-10 branch (without any change to original
> > > > > patches)
> > > > > PR97969 and following PR98722 & PR98777 patches.
> > > > >
> > > > > Commits apply cleanly without changes.
> > > > > Built and regression tested on:
> > > > > * arm-none-eabi and
> > > > > * aarch64-none-linux-gnu cross toolchains.
> > > > >
> > > > > There were no issues and no regressions (all OK).
> > > > >
> > > > > OK for backport to gcc-10 branch ?
> > > >
> > > > Sorry for delay with the answer due to my vacation.
> > > >
> > > > As the patches did not introduce new PRs I believe they are ok for gcc-10.
> > >
> > > Backported to gcc-10 branch. Thank you for your support.
> > >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm surprised to see many new errors on arm after the backport for PR98722
> > See: https://people.linaro.org/~christophe.lyon/cross-validation/gcc/gcc-
> > 10/r10-9881-g1791b11d9cae388ae18a768eeb96c998439c986a/report-build-
> > info.html
> >
> > Przemyslaw, Vladimir do you confirm r10-9881 has no such errors (new
> > ICEs) on your side?
>
> Apologies.
>
> I've built and regtested before submitting backport yesterday.
> I will check on my side and build one of your failing configurations.
>

After I sent the previous email, I received the validation results for
the next backport,
and it seems it fixes the ICEs introduced by r10-9881:
https://people.linaro.org/~christophe.lyon/cross-validation/gcc/gcc-10/r10-9882-g05f6971ac40912ef062915f88b3ea0bf27278285/report-build-info.html

I guess you ran validations with the 3 backports combined, rather than
individually?

So it looks OK now.

Thanks,

Christophe


> Przemyslaw
>
> > Thanks
> >
> > > Kind regards
> > > Przemyslaw
> > >
> > > > Thank you.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > Przemyslaw Wirkus
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > > commits I've backported:
> > > > >
> > > > > commit cf2ac1c30af0fa783c8d72e527904dda5d8cc330
> > > > > Author: Vladimir N. Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com>
> > > > > Date:   Tue Jan 12 11:26:15 2021 -0500
> > > > >
> > > > >      [PR97969] LRA: Transform pattern `plus (plus (hard reg,
> > > > > const), pseudo)`
> > > > after elimination
> > > > >
> > > > > commit 4334b524274203125193a08a8485250c41c2daa9
> > > > > Author: Vladimir N. Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com>
> > > > > Date:   Wed Jan 20 11:40:14 2021 -0500
> > > > >
> > > > >      [PR98722] LRA: Check that target has no 3-op add insn to
> > > > > transform 2
> > > > plus expression.
> > > > >
> > > > > commit 68ba1039c7daf0485b167fe199ed7e8031158091
> > > > > Author: Vladimir N. Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com>
> > > > > Date:   Thu Jan 21 17:27:01 2021 -0500
> > > > >
> > > > >      [PR98777] LRA: Use preliminary created pseudo for in LRA
> > > > > elimination
> > > > subpass
> > > > >
> > > > > $ ./contrib/git-backport.py
> > > > > cf2ac1c30af0fa783c8d72e527904dda5d8cc330
> > > > > $ ./contrib/git-backport.py
> > > > > 4334b524274203125193a08a8485250c41c2daa9
> > > > > $ ./contrib/git-backport.py
> > > > > 68ba1039c7daf0485b167fe199ed7e8031158091
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >> Richard.
> > >

RE: [backport gcc10, gcc9] Requet to backport PR97969

[Przemyslaw Wirkus]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org>
> Sent: 03 June 2021 10:10
> To: Przemyslaw Wirkus <Przemyslaw.Wirkus@arm.com>
> Cc: Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com>; jakub@redhat.com; Richard
> Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>; Richard Biener
> <rguenther@suse.de>; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Ramana Radhakrishnan
> <Ramana.Radhakrishnan@arm.com>
> Subject: Re: [backport gcc10, gcc9] Requet to backport PR97969
> 
> On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 at 10:54, Przemyslaw Wirkus
> <Przemyslaw.Wirkus@arm.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org>
> > > Sent: 03 June 2021 09:45
> > > To: Przemyslaw Wirkus <Przemyslaw.Wirkus@arm.com>
> > > Cc: Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com>; jakub@redhat.com;
> > > Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>; Richard Biener
> > > <rguenther@suse.de>; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Ramana Radhakrishnan
> > > <Ramana.Radhakrishnan@arm.com>
> > > Subject: Re: [backport gcc10, gcc9] Requet to backport PR97969
> > >
> > > On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 at 00:31, Przemyslaw Wirkus via Gcc-patches <gcc-
> > > patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com>
> > > > > Sent: 31 May 2021 16:52
> > > > > To: Przemyslaw Wirkus <Przemyslaw.Wirkus@arm.com>; Richard
> > > > > Biener <rguenther@suse.de>
> > > > > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; jakub@redhat.com; nickc@redhat.com;
> > > > > Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>; Ramana
> > > Radhakrishnan
> > > > > <Ramana.Radhakrishnan@arm.com>; Kyrylo Tkachov
> > > > > <Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com>
> > > > > Subject: Re: [backport gcc10, gcc9] Requet to backport PR97969
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 2021-05-25 5:14 a.m., Przemyslaw Wirkus wrote:
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > Just a follow up after GCC 11 release.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've backported to gcc-10 branch (without any change to
> > > > > > original
> > > > > > patches)
> > > > > > PR97969 and following PR98722 & PR98777 patches.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Commits apply cleanly without changes.
> > > > > > Built and regression tested on:
> > > > > > * arm-none-eabi and
> > > > > > * aarch64-none-linux-gnu cross toolchains.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There were no issues and no regressions (all OK).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > OK for backport to gcc-10 branch ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry for delay with the answer due to my vacation.
> > > > >
> > > > > As the patches did not introduce new PRs I believe they are ok for gcc-
> 10.
> > > >
> > > > Backported to gcc-10 branch. Thank you for your support.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I'm surprised to see many new errors on arm after the backport for
> > > PR98722
> > > See:
> > > https://people.linaro.org/~christophe.lyon/cross-validation/gcc/gcc-
> > > 10/r10-9881-g1791b11d9cae388ae18a768eeb96c998439c986a/report-
> build-
> > > info.html
> > >
> > > Przemyslaw, Vladimir do you confirm r10-9881 has no such errors (new
> > > ICEs) on your side?
> >
> > Apologies.
> >
> > I've built and regtested before submitting backport yesterday.
> > I will check on my side and build one of your failing configurations.
> >
> 
> After I sent the previous email, I received the validation results for the next
> backport, and it seems it fixes the ICEs introduced by r10-9881:
> https://people.linaro.org/~christophe.lyon/cross-validation/gcc/gcc-10/r10-
> 9882-g05f6971ac40912ef062915f88b3ea0bf27278285/report-build-info.html
> 
> I guess you ran validations with the 3 backports combined, rather than
> individually?

<nervous chuckle>
Yes, these three PRs are all connected to each other. That's why I've ran validation
after third one, not for each one separately.

PS: Office folks now roast me with true passion ;)

P.

> So it looks OK now.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Christophe
> 
> 
> > Przemyslaw
> >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > > Kind regards
> > > > Przemyslaw
> > > >
> > > > > Thank you.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > > Przemyslaw Wirkus
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > commits I've backported:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > commit cf2ac1c30af0fa783c8d72e527904dda5d8cc330
> > > > > > Author: Vladimir N. Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com>
> > > > > > Date:   Tue Jan 12 11:26:15 2021 -0500
> > > > > >
> > > > > >      [PR97969] LRA: Transform pattern `plus (plus (hard reg,
> > > > > > const), pseudo)`
> > > > > after elimination
> > > > > >
> > > > > > commit 4334b524274203125193a08a8485250c41c2daa9
> > > > > > Author: Vladimir N. Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com>
> > > > > > Date:   Wed Jan 20 11:40:14 2021 -0500
> > > > > >
> > > > > >      [PR98722] LRA: Check that target has no 3-op add insn to
> > > > > > transform 2
> > > > > plus expression.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > commit 68ba1039c7daf0485b167fe199ed7e8031158091
> > > > > > Author: Vladimir N. Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com>
> > > > > > Date:   Thu Jan 21 17:27:01 2021 -0500
> > > > > >
> > > > > >      [PR98777] LRA: Use preliminary created pseudo for in LRA
> > > > > > elimination
> > > > > subpass
> > > > > >
> > > > > > $ ./contrib/git-backport.py
> > > > > > cf2ac1c30af0fa783c8d72e527904dda5d8cc330
> > > > > > $ ./contrib/git-backport.py
> > > > > > 4334b524274203125193a08a8485250c41c2daa9
> > > > > > $ ./contrib/git-backport.py
> > > > > > 68ba1039c7daf0485b167fe199ed7e8031158091
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Richard.
> > > >