From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lj1-x233.google.com (mail-lj1-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::233]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B3F993858D1E for ; Thu, 18 Aug 2022 15:54:07 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org B3F993858D1E Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=embecosm.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=embecosm.com Received: by mail-lj1-x233.google.com with SMTP id v10so2102301ljh.9 for ; Thu, 18 Aug 2022 08:54:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=embecosm.com; s=google; h=mime-version:user-agent:references:message-id:in-reply-to:subject :cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc; bh=GOJZJ40vLKqziMSYXlZhIMu1sTyMEl5jV0U9rk6lv40=; b=eVzQ7Dzpcoe/nZLmzqQZp8Igwu3VsKWHX3NSl0QHT15yYHB4ur4MGk0s4ugCZedh2P MkHSyoKaTL8DrcN6DjjoUqm6py1sgvh9n35qx8vH5mjVvhcx6Jb03dOJnix5mN/Xvtyx MS4RIG9RzG931cxZb1aiKHda3ZkbBMq+1nGBRrOLKSfBQbMPG45fWFgHt4ASuetMGZrq GMV5oCEksg1fhWVfbHIAFOm5JWwq3MVsrpCAeDh1SMF1qYBVOhrdbC9tRof9G0GMbAYX tHHByaI+8wQzyS0s9aXTkn+cVAZg/vwmp/kwTYDzZzBW3xeNoPZop5ZwpQMJOhZcoYyv VClg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=mime-version:user-agent:references:message-id:in-reply-to:subject :cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc; bh=GOJZJ40vLKqziMSYXlZhIMu1sTyMEl5jV0U9rk6lv40=; b=siNDOKDrs4v5FDV3/77TBRZ0Pf8fXnnqScepLyiz4RGOeDKXMLH4/C4TawYNU1QdHO VciaBDGndBSZwG3TI5PiHLw0rCS550RAUht95/g8eYshqhcyPkSjST7N2Cm2g2Xvhg0F pXp/CsZhnRVWAsY2sW/CyJEmm9rismWZtciZ4OYpvVQ4XjEeycbIVNxOtDUB0bGD/6Do 5HWq9/+DiyEdoQcHsP+ZwE9kiSBWCU0FK6NVBgFBtmh9Hrr5nEDf6DEgO4ELPClif4z/ OS+nAS/E3olTIHfW7OyBO16h6UZXMuSlaGOgucrU7F1Opin7+gr2oneoxmeSd/fPKVTf jSSA== X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo2ZY4MW46roN0XehXv+5QOcht0JpHSLMkhS02hJJoU5FPZ7XxTh Sx3Y55O9oqp1vygaGv21aYCBlA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR4XUB9T+omEaRlBMEUu1VnS7pfaMDqaciUQ4fuSh6I9uAmVNwoBHBSsmotTJoGlS+LlFgPx/A== X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:222c:b0:25f:e654:36e3 with SMTP id y44-20020a05651c222c00b0025fe65436e3mr1024944ljq.20.1660838045943; Thu, 18 Aug 2022 08:54:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.219.3] ([78.8.192.131]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t5-20020a195f05000000b00491734dcb89sm261201lfb.196.2022.08.18.08.54.04 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 18 Aug 2022 08:54:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2022 16:54:02 +0100 (BST) From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" To: Kito Cheng cc: GCC Patches , Andrew Waterman , Jakub Jelinek Subject: Re: [PING][PATCH] RISC-V: Standardize formatting of SFB ALU conditional move In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, KAM_SHORT, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, 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 X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2022 15:54:10 -0000 On Thu, 18 Aug 2022, Kito Cheng wrote: > OK, thanks for tweaking this! Committed now, thanks for your review! Would you mind sharing your opinion on my previous observation here: ? I have since realised we have a `-mbranch-cost=' option letting the user set the threshold for choosing branches over alternative code sequences, so my concern is valid even for our tree unchanged and without the change just committed here applied. Consequently the test case may fail. E.g. with: RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board remote-unmatched/-mbranch-cost=1 riscv.exp=pr105314.c" I get: PASS: gcc.target/riscv/pr105314.c -O0 (test for excess errors) FAIL: gcc.target/riscv/pr105314.c -O0 scan-assembler-not \tbeq\t PASS: gcc.target/riscv/pr105314.c -O1 (test for excess errors) FAIL: gcc.target/riscv/pr105314.c -O1 scan-assembler-not \tbeq\t [...] === gcc Summary === # of expected passes 9 # of unexpected failures 9 because GCC legitimately chooses to emit branches as less costly in this case. I think we need to pacify the test case somehow if it does not match the criteria for PR105314, either by excluding the case from testing in that situation or by forcing it via command-line options to make it match the criteria (or indeed by verifying a branch is produced regardless). Sadly Jakub chose not to chime in and it's not clear to me which approach would be the most appropriate here. Maciej