* [backport gcc10, gcc9] Requet to backport PR97969 @ 2021-01-18 10:43 Przemyslaw Wirkus 2021-01-18 12:50 ` Richard Biener 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Przemyslaw Wirkus @ 2021-01-18 10:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-patches Cc: vmakarov, jakub, rguenther, nickc, Richard Earnshaw, Ramana Radhakrishnan, Kyrylo Tkachov 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [backport gcc10, gcc9] Requet to backport PR97969 2021-01-18 10:43 [backport gcc10, gcc9] Requet to backport PR97969 Przemyslaw Wirkus @ 2021-01-18 12:50 ` Richard Biener 2021-01-18 15:06 ` Vladimir Makarov 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Richard Biener @ 2021-01-18 12:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Przemyslaw Wirkus Cc: gcc-patches, vmakarov, jakub, nickc, Richard Earnshaw, Ramana Radhakrishnan, Kyrylo Tkachov 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) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [backport gcc10, gcc9] Requet to backport PR97969 2021-01-18 12:50 ` Richard Biener @ 2021-01-18 15:06 ` Vladimir Makarov 2021-02-02 10:05 ` Przemyslaw Wirkus 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Vladimir Makarov @ 2021-01-18 15:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Biener, Przemyslaw Wirkus Cc: gcc-patches, jakub, nickc, Richard Earnshaw, Ramana Radhakrishnan, Kyrylo Tkachov 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. >> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* RE: [backport gcc10, gcc9] Requet to backport PR97969 2021-01-18 15:06 ` Vladimir Makarov @ 2021-02-02 10:05 ` Przemyslaw Wirkus 2021-02-02 10:07 ` Richard Biener 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Przemyslaw Wirkus @ 2021-02-02 10:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vladimir Makarov, Richard Biener Cc: gcc-patches, jakub, nickc, Richard Earnshaw, Ramana Radhakrishnan, Kyrylo Tkachov > 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. > >> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* RE: [backport gcc10, gcc9] Requet to backport PR97969 2021-02-02 10:05 ` Przemyslaw Wirkus @ 2021-02-02 10:07 ` Richard Biener 2021-05-25 9:14 ` Przemyslaw Wirkus 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Richard Biener @ 2021-02-02 10:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Przemyslaw Wirkus Cc: Vladimir Makarov, gcc-patches, jakub, nickc, Richard Earnshaw, Ramana Radhakrishnan, Kyrylo Tkachov 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* RE: [backport gcc10, gcc9] Requet to backport PR97969 2021-02-02 10:07 ` Richard Biener @ 2021-05-25 9:14 ` Przemyslaw Wirkus 2021-05-31 15:52 ` Vladimir Makarov 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Przemyslaw Wirkus @ 2021-05-25 9:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Biener Cc: Vladimir Makarov, gcc-patches, jakub, nickc, Richard Earnshaw, Ramana Radhakrishnan, Kyrylo Tkachov > -----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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [backport gcc10, gcc9] Requet to backport PR97969 2021-05-25 9:14 ` Przemyslaw Wirkus @ 2021-05-31 15:52 ` Vladimir Makarov 2021-06-02 22:30 ` Przemyslaw Wirkus 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Vladimir Makarov @ 2021-05-31 15:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Przemyslaw Wirkus, Richard Biener Cc: gcc-patches, jakub, nickc, Richard Earnshaw, Ramana Radhakrishnan, Kyrylo Tkachov 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* RE: [backport gcc10, gcc9] Requet to backport PR97969 2021-05-31 15:52 ` Vladimir Makarov @ 2021-06-02 22:30 ` Przemyslaw Wirkus 2021-06-03 8:45 ` Christophe Lyon 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Przemyslaw Wirkus @ 2021-06-02 22:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vladimir Makarov Cc: gcc-patches, jakub, nickc, Richard Earnshaw, Ramana Radhakrishnan, Kyrylo Tkachov, Richard Biener 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [backport gcc10, gcc9] Requet to backport PR97969 2021-06-02 22:30 ` Przemyslaw Wirkus @ 2021-06-03 8:45 ` Christophe Lyon 2021-06-03 8:54 ` Przemyslaw Wirkus 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Christophe Lyon @ 2021-06-03 8:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Przemyslaw Wirkus Cc: Vladimir Makarov, jakub, Richard Earnshaw, Richard Biener, gcc-patches, Ramana Radhakrishnan 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. > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* RE: [backport gcc10, gcc9] Requet to backport PR97969 2021-06-03 8:45 ` Christophe Lyon @ 2021-06-03 8:54 ` Przemyslaw Wirkus 2021-06-03 9:09 ` Christophe Lyon 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Przemyslaw Wirkus @ 2021-06-03 8:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christophe Lyon Cc: Vladimir Makarov, jakub, Richard Earnshaw, Richard Biener, gcc-patches, Ramana Radhakrishnan > -----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. > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [backport gcc10, gcc9] Requet to backport PR97969 2021-06-03 8:54 ` Przemyslaw Wirkus @ 2021-06-03 9:09 ` Christophe Lyon 2021-06-03 9:16 ` Przemyslaw Wirkus 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Christophe Lyon @ 2021-06-03 9:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Przemyslaw Wirkus Cc: Vladimir Makarov, jakub, Richard Earnshaw, Richard Biener, gcc-patches, Ramana Radhakrishnan 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. > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* RE: [backport gcc10, gcc9] Requet to backport PR97969 2021-06-03 9:09 ` Christophe Lyon @ 2021-06-03 9:16 ` Przemyslaw Wirkus 0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Przemyslaw Wirkus @ 2021-06-03 9:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christophe Lyon Cc: Vladimir Makarov, jakub, Richard Earnshaw, Richard Biener, gcc-patches, Ramana Radhakrishnan > -----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. > > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-06-03 9:16 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 12+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2021-01-18 10:43 [backport gcc10, gcc9] Requet to backport PR97969 Przemyslaw Wirkus 2021-01-18 12:50 ` Richard Biener 2021-01-18 15:06 ` Vladimir Makarov 2021-02-02 10:05 ` Przemyslaw Wirkus 2021-02-02 10:07 ` Richard Biener 2021-05-25 9:14 ` Przemyslaw Wirkus 2021-05-31 15:52 ` Vladimir Makarov 2021-06-02 22:30 ` Przemyslaw Wirkus 2021-06-03 8:45 ` Christophe Lyon 2021-06-03 8:54 ` Przemyslaw Wirkus 2021-06-03 9:09 ` Christophe Lyon 2021-06-03 9:16 ` Przemyslaw Wirkus
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).