From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 890793858D32 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 08:07:10 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 890793858D32 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1682410030; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=KOuK7k4zqlsjborbE2dFufGCHBzFTUM87SkE40OWH/M=; b=ciiqXLSRej6XwPmQBnP6Ed1nuw1xVXzfCST5jCfOSqDtJKgCWCNZpaChDJHIU/H3yaSeMD HPNMr7v3MoA2yz3ua3ExqUjopwwZnzgIj5/ZGQ/ZXTLCgNo9aubieMTAUaJAH9kAld0w2p X6POaaLVkMCzGkU5VIhI3HVvwR2YZ/w= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-193-yY17IfztOH6NHUdSL1sRlg-1; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 04:07:05 -0400 X-MC-Unique: yY17IfztOH6NHUdSL1sRlg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7BF0185A5B1; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 08:07:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (unknown [10.39.194.156]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C5CF2166B3A; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 08:07:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPS id 33P86tWk2361087 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 25 Apr 2023 10:06:56 +0200 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1/Submit) id 33P86rSP2361086; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 10:06:53 +0200 Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2023 10:06:53 +0200 From: Jakub Jelinek To: "Kewen.Lin" Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Xionghu Luo , David Edelsohn , Segher Boessenkool , Kewen Lin Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Fix up *branch_anddi3_dot for -m32 -mpowerpc64 [PR109566] Message-ID: Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <5df85739-c065-a32e-b725-4a301c6e3b0e@linux.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5df85739-c065-a32e-b725-4a301c6e3b0e@linux.ibm.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.6 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,KAM_SHORT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 01:33:18PM +0800, Kewen.Lin via Gcc-patches wrote: > For the associated test case, it looks it's valid to make use of rldicr. > (rolt with dot), so an alternative seems to relax the condition of > *rotldi3_mask_dot. Considering this is also targeted for 13.1, I think > this proposed fix is much more conservative, thus this looks good to me! > I also expect Segher/David can give a final say. :) I admit I couldn't find the reason for that condition (it appears on multiple patterns), but for release branches I think we need to stay as conservative as possible. > > + /* *rotldi3_mask_dot requires for -m32 -mpowerpc64 that the mask is > > + <= 0x7ffffff. */ > > typo, a "f" is missing in "0x7ffffff". Thanks for catching this. Added to my patch copy. > > + return (UINTVAL (mask) << (63 - nb)) <= 0x7fffffff; > > + } > > + else > > + return false; > > } > > > > /* Return whether MASK (a CONST_INT) is a valid mask for any rlwinm, rldicl, > > --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr109566.c.jj 2023-04-24 12:54:48.293266468 +0200 > > +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr109566.c 2023-04-24 12:34:34.306006418 +0200 > > @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ > > +/* PR target/109566 */ > > +/* { dg-do compile } */ > > +/* { dg-options "-O2 -mpowerpc64" } */ > > /* { dg-skip-if "" { powerpc*-*-aix* } { "*" } { "" } } */ > > Like 749140af5d072a, we have to exclude this to be tested on aix, otherwise the > -maix32 and -mpowerpc64 can cause an error message on aix like: > > error: '-maix64' required: 64-bit computation with 32-bit addressing not yet supported Added +/* Skip this on aix, otherwise it emits the error message like "64-bit + computation with 32-bit addressing not yet supported" on aix. */ +/* { dg-skip-if "" { powerpc*-*-aix* } } */ to my copy from another testcase. Jakub