* PR111754
@ 2023-11-28 7:56 juzhe.zhong
2023-11-28 8:43 ` PR111754 Jakub Jelinek
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: juzhe.zhong @ 2023-11-28 7:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-patches; +Cc: richard.sandiford, prathamesh.kulkarni
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 629 bytes --]
Hi, there is a regression in RISC-V caused by this patch:
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr111754.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects scan-tree-dump optimized "return { 0.0, 9.0e\\+0, 0.0, 0.0 }"
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr111754.c scan-tree-dump optimized "return { 0.0, 9.0e\\+0, 0.0, 0.0 }"
I have checked the dump is :
F foo (F a, F b)
{
<bb 2> [local count: 1073741824]:
<retval> = { 0.0, 9.0e+0, 0.0, 0.0 };
return <retval>;
}
The dump IR seems reasonable to me.
I wonder whether we should walk around in RISC-V backend to generate the same IR as ARM SVE ?
Or we should adjust the test ?
Thanks.
juzhe.zhong@rivai.ai
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: PR111754 2023-11-28 7:56 PR111754 juzhe.zhong @ 2023-11-28 8:43 ` Jakub Jelinek 2023-11-28 8:57 ` [PATCH] testsuite: Fix up pr111754.c test Jakub Jelinek 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Jakub Jelinek @ 2023-11-28 8:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: prathamesh.kulkarni, juzhe.zhong; +Cc: gcc-patches, richard.sandiford On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 03:56:47PM +0800, juzhe.zhong@rivai.ai wrote: > Hi, there is a regression in RISC-V caused by this patch: > > FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr111754.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects scan-tree-dump optimized "return { 0.0, 9.0e\\+0, 0.0, 0.0 }" > FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr111754.c scan-tree-dump optimized "return { 0.0, 9.0e\\+0, 0.0, 0.0 }" > > I have checked the dump is : > F foo (F a, F b) > { > <bb 2> [local count: 1073741824]: > <retval> = { 0.0, 9.0e+0, 0.0, 0.0 }; > return <retval>; > > } > > The dump IR seems reasonable to me. > I wonder whether we should walk around in RISC-V backend to generate the same IR as ARM SVE ? > Or we should adjust the test ? Note, the test also FAILs on i686-linux (but not e.g. on x86_64-linux): /home/jakub/src/gcc/obj67/gcc/xgcc -B/home/jakub/src/gcc/obj67/gcc/ /home/jakub/src/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr111754.c -fdiagnostics-plain-output -O2 -fdump-tree-optimized -S -o pr111754.s /home/jakub/src/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr111754.c: In function 'foo': /home/jakub/src/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr111754.c:7:1: warning: SSE vector return without SSE enabled changes the ABI [-Wpsabi] /home/jakub/src/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr111754.c:6:3: note: the ABI for passing parameters with 16-byte alignment has changed in GCC 4.6 /home/jakub/src/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr111754.c:6:3: warning: SSE vector argument without SSE enabled changes the ABI [-Wpsabi] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr111754.c (test for excess errors) Excess errors: /home/jakub/src/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr111754.c:7:1: warning: SSE vector return without SSE enabled changes the ABI [-Wpsabi] /home/jakub/src/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr111754.c:6:3: warning: SSE vector argument without SSE enabled changes the ABI [-Wpsabi] PASS: gcc.dg/vect/pr111754.c scan-tree-dump-not optimized "VEC_PERM_EXPR" FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr111754.c scan-tree-dump optimized "return { 0.0, 9.0e\\+0, 0.0, 0.0 }" So, I think it is wrong to specify /* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-optimized" } */ in the test, should be dg-additional-options instead, so that it gets the implied vector compilation options e.g. for i686-linux (-msse2 in that case at least), question is if -Wno-psabi should be added as well or not, and certainly the scan-tree-dump needs to be guarded by appropriate vect_* effective target (but dunno which, one which asserts support for V4SFmode and returning it). Alternatively, perhaps don't check optimized dump but some earlier one before generic vector lowering, then hopefully it could match on all targets? Maybe with the <retval> = ... vs. return ... variants. Jakub ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] testsuite: Fix up pr111754.c test 2023-11-28 8:43 ` PR111754 Jakub Jelinek @ 2023-11-28 8:57 ` Jakub Jelinek 2023-11-28 9:12 ` Richard Biener 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Jakub Jelinek @ 2023-11-28 8:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: prathamesh.kulkarni, juzhe.zhong, gcc-patches, richard.sandiford On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 09:43:52AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 03:56:47PM +0800, juzhe.zhong@rivai.ai wrote: > > Hi, there is a regression in RISC-V caused by this patch: > > > > FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr111754.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects scan-tree-dump optimized "return { 0.0, 9.0e\\+0, 0.0, 0.0 }" > > FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr111754.c scan-tree-dump optimized "return { 0.0, 9.0e\\+0, 0.0, 0.0 }" > > > > I have checked the dump is : > > F foo (F a, F b) > > { > > <bb 2> [local count: 1073741824]: > > <retval> = { 0.0, 9.0e+0, 0.0, 0.0 }; > > return <retval>; > > > > } > > > > The dump IR seems reasonable to me. > > I wonder whether we should walk around in RISC-V backend to generate the same IR as ARM SVE ? > > Or we should adjust the test ? > > Note, the test also FAILs on i686-linux (but not e.g. on x86_64-linux): > /home/jakub/src/gcc/obj67/gcc/xgcc -B/home/jakub/src/gcc/obj67/gcc/ /home/jakub/src/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr111754.c -fdiagnostics-plain-output -O2 -fdump-tree-optimized -S -o pr111754.s > /home/jakub/src/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr111754.c: In function 'foo': > /home/jakub/src/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr111754.c:7:1: warning: SSE vector return without SSE enabled changes the ABI [-Wpsabi] > /home/jakub/src/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr111754.c:6:3: note: the ABI for passing parameters with 16-byte alignment has changed in GCC 4.6 > /home/jakub/src/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr111754.c:6:3: warning: SSE vector argument without SSE enabled changes the ABI [-Wpsabi] > FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr111754.c (test for excess errors) > Excess errors: > /home/jakub/src/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr111754.c:7:1: warning: SSE vector return without SSE enabled changes the ABI [-Wpsabi] > /home/jakub/src/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr111754.c:6:3: warning: SSE vector argument without SSE enabled changes the ABI [-Wpsabi] > > PASS: gcc.dg/vect/pr111754.c scan-tree-dump-not optimized "VEC_PERM_EXPR" > FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr111754.c scan-tree-dump optimized "return { 0.0, 9.0e\\+0, 0.0, 0.0 }" > > So, I think it is wrong to specify > /* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-optimized" } */ > in the test, should be dg-additional-options instead, so that it gets > the implied vector compilation options e.g. for i686-linux (-msse2 in that > case at least), question is if -Wno-psabi should be added as well or not, > and certainly the scan-tree-dump needs to be guarded by appropriate > vect_* effective target (but dunno which, one which asserts support for > V4SFmode and returning it). > Alternatively, perhaps don't check optimized dump but some earlier one > before generic vector lowering, then hopefully it could match on all > targets? Maybe with the <retval> = ... vs. return ... variants. All in one patch now. Tested on x86_64-linux with make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS='--target_board=unix\{-m32,-m32/-mno-sse,-m64\} vect.exp=pr111754.c' Ok for trunk? 2023-11-28 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> PR middle-end/111754 * gcc.dg/vect/pr111754.c: Use dg-additional-options rather than dg-options, add -Wno-psabi and use -fdump-tree-forwprop1 rather than -fdump-tree-optimized. Scan forwprop1 dump rather than optimized and scan for either direct return or setting of <retval> to the vector. --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr111754.c.jj 2023-11-28 08:46:28.422801989 +0100 +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr111754.c 2023-11-28 09:52:56.761059292 +0100 @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@ +/* PR middle-end/111754 */ /* { dg-do compile } */ -/* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-optimized" } */ +/* { dg-additional-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-forwprop1 -Wno-psabi" } */ typedef float __attribute__((__vector_size__ (16))) F; @@ -9,5 +10,5 @@ F foo (F a, F b) return __builtin_shufflevector (v, v, 1, 0, 1, 2); } -/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-not "VEC_PERM_EXPR" "optimized" } } */ -/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "return \{ 0.0, 9.0e\\+0, 0.0, 0.0 \}" "optimized" } } */ +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-not "VEC_PERM_EXPR" "forwprop1" } } */ +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "(return|<retval> =) \{ 0.0, 9.0e\\+0, 0.0, 0.0 \}" "forwprop1" } } */ Jakub ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] testsuite: Fix up pr111754.c test 2023-11-28 8:57 ` [PATCH] testsuite: Fix up pr111754.c test Jakub Jelinek @ 2023-11-28 9:12 ` Richard Biener 0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread From: Richard Biener @ 2023-11-28 9:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jakub Jelinek Cc: prathamesh.kulkarni, juzhe.zhong, gcc-patches, richard.sandiford > Am 28.11.2023 um 09:58 schrieb Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>: > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 09:43:52AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 03:56:47PM +0800, juzhe.zhong@rivai.ai wrote: >>> Hi, there is a regression in RISC-V caused by this patch: >>> >>> FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr111754.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects scan-tree-dump optimized "return { 0.0, 9.0e\\+0, 0.0, 0.0 }" >>> FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr111754.c scan-tree-dump optimized "return { 0.0, 9.0e\\+0, 0.0, 0.0 }" >>> >>> I have checked the dump is : >>> F foo (F a, F b) >>> { >>> <bb 2> [local count: 1073741824]: >>> <retval> = { 0.0, 9.0e+0, 0.0, 0.0 }; >>> return <retval>; >>> >>> } >>> >>> The dump IR seems reasonable to me. >>> I wonder whether we should walk around in RISC-V backend to generate the same IR as ARM SVE ? >>> Or we should adjust the test ? >> >> Note, the test also FAILs on i686-linux (but not e.g. on x86_64-linux): >> /home/jakub/src/gcc/obj67/gcc/xgcc -B/home/jakub/src/gcc/obj67/gcc/ /home/jakub/src/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr111754.c -fdiagnostics-plain-output -O2 -fdump-tree-optimized -S -o pr111754.s >> /home/jakub/src/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr111754.c: In function 'foo': >> /home/jakub/src/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr111754.c:7:1: warning: SSE vector return without SSE enabled changes the ABI [-Wpsabi] >> /home/jakub/src/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr111754.c:6:3: note: the ABI for passing parameters with 16-byte alignment has changed in GCC 4.6 >> /home/jakub/src/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr111754.c:6:3: warning: SSE vector argument without SSE enabled changes the ABI [-Wpsabi] >> FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr111754.c (test for excess errors) >> Excess errors: >> /home/jakub/src/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr111754.c:7:1: warning: SSE vector return without SSE enabled changes the ABI [-Wpsabi] >> /home/jakub/src/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr111754.c:6:3: warning: SSE vector argument without SSE enabled changes the ABI [-Wpsabi] >> >> PASS: gcc.dg/vect/pr111754.c scan-tree-dump-not optimized "VEC_PERM_EXPR" >> FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr111754.c scan-tree-dump optimized "return { 0.0, 9.0e\\+0, 0.0, 0.0 }" >> >> So, I think it is wrong to specify >> /* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-optimized" } */ >> in the test, should be dg-additional-options instead, so that it gets >> the implied vector compilation options e.g. for i686-linux (-msse2 in that >> case at least), question is if -Wno-psabi should be added as well or not, >> and certainly the scan-tree-dump needs to be guarded by appropriate >> vect_* effective target (but dunno which, one which asserts support for >> V4SFmode and returning it). >> Alternatively, perhaps don't check optimized dump but some earlier one >> before generic vector lowering, then hopefully it could match on all >> targets? Maybe with the <retval> = ... vs. return ... variants. > > All in one patch now. > > Tested on x86_64-linux with > make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS='--target_board=unix\{-m32,-m32/-mno-sse,-m64\} vect.exp=pr111754.c' > Ok for trunk? Ok Richard > 2023-11-28 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> > > PR middle-end/111754 > * gcc.dg/vect/pr111754.c: Use dg-additional-options rather than > dg-options, add -Wno-psabi and use -fdump-tree-forwprop1 rather than > -fdump-tree-optimized. Scan forwprop1 dump rather than optimized and > scan for either direct return or setting of <retval> to the vector. > > --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr111754.c.jj 2023-11-28 08:46:28.422801989 +0100 > +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr111754.c 2023-11-28 09:52:56.761059292 +0100 > @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@ > +/* PR middle-end/111754 */ > /* { dg-do compile } */ > -/* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-optimized" } */ > +/* { dg-additional-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-forwprop1 -Wno-psabi" } */ > > typedef float __attribute__((__vector_size__ (16))) F; > > @@ -9,5 +10,5 @@ F foo (F a, F b) > return __builtin_shufflevector (v, v, 1, 0, 1, 2); > } > > -/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-not "VEC_PERM_EXPR" "optimized" } } */ > -/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "return \{ 0.0, 9.0e\\+0, 0.0, 0.0 \}" "optimized" } } */ > +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-not "VEC_PERM_EXPR" "forwprop1" } } */ > +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "(return|<retval> =) \{ 0.0, 9.0e\\+0, 0.0, 0.0 \}" "forwprop1" } } */ > > > Jakub > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-11-28 9:12 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2023-11-28 7:56 PR111754 juzhe.zhong 2023-11-28 8:43 ` PR111754 Jakub Jelinek 2023-11-28 8:57 ` [PATCH] testsuite: Fix up pr111754.c test Jakub Jelinek 2023-11-28 9:12 ` Richard Biener
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).