From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ej1-x62b.google.com (mail-ej1-x62b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62b]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 28A223858D28 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2024 15:33:27 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 28A223858D28 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=embecosm.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=embecosm.com ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 28A223858D28 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::62b ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1705419209; cv=none; b=o9EdUKiGdI9KDVGEDxnM1uxyq4ltgkN6gnqaTQpAFD0e+azZC7/wzgNOCSk8hT2D419k4xfX3ktbS1UCeUGNcH6IOD4C3Wjc017ct4CzewvXNto09Iz7Q4xww94dhLa3c0rMwYfSvMnaa2iUF3INUDvosETDdXsS6pjxjFS+VKo= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1705419209; c=relaxed/simple; bh=DeI8zOc62HAB/BxsuxZlSVd7/DW/Box3EUSbaK14e7g=; h=DKIM-Signature:Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=n5Aaz7Ut40dVMO9wEMhZBCnR9YCbbQ/EWck/QNwHjYcB2mo5+Hc1LtgjSZLCMSwA2dy4rR9V8FwBpUVO73RKUkIxrB4YdwXxWe6Kxhmy5grkm+KFCBrhPAVrg0QdwEt37HalCj9P4aQxrgaYYoTyAOHUIEDG/Y1BKKCP+6muzZ0= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org Received: by mail-ej1-x62b.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-a2a17f3217aso1097401166b.2 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2024 07:33:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=embecosm.com; s=google; t=1705419206; x=1706024006; darn=gcc.gnu.org; h=mime-version:user-agent:references:message-id:in-reply-to:subject :cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=2OfbesSfPRSMxRNozzkGyle91gH5nekhj5g76aPgpcY=; b=BSKoWybPiBBVGJQuF1Z/TffJMOWsT7qYamgUv7tETpJFmN1q9tnMGW/qTt4yRVfXQG zykd6dYJ0db6kecAsuNMAshAVTGkWuJbmiZf/jJxvYj7qG7K5KRoM54dAfwoZh3u6QRj IgGJ+2MZA2Lv5nR9nRPj7/YYt23KaGN601KWxWhJimHrWwGKr8JV6aXPxJxEE8MP9ha3 knjOZaKv/2epbqcClJ59A/OAPmVf7aqHlZeGxze7ZfTuNF/7kMHLOiglfrdI4usrBeAn NBau5QblsVVeA/ks80CLqeDRmo6J+txmQO7v6h6YCYD2Up/zcXP9C2yqn7hKU1xIhduw 7LAQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1705419206; x=1706024006; h=mime-version:user-agent:references:message-id:in-reply-to:subject :cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=2OfbesSfPRSMxRNozzkGyle91gH5nekhj5g76aPgpcY=; b=EG3OhbnMROUjxC2TrgSOc8L1YMn6IY7Gfh3RvoSKvcoRemfzbnAgq0968r4drNYXPb bdBu4HOIvkWQixa4Cw5v1PPZIbG+s4mGR9Q0O/nEbIR8jprW+NFz5UaUvxmnDZGEVm1a epHK1nM4LFYVv0EM4NAXkCQCdqIXjbL1dQc1P6vGoLqk09BGcc2sQO85zmheK8iBjW9w REOjv5/Wtwm9SipLd/qp0dfbfRviaoAiDwPhu30NmAnMNaRul/oE14OMNYemYvrpBhST +Bmf/TZVQg9rlNFEA3cZNM2MbAYHEaZwGWm55WD7/386GsDMMiKlt1RDfiapCLiQ1d72 0Ehw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxntOMsFA28CbM3TLcLTyABzZXIY/3yXELTLcerMOmcpBLuiqT1 UM8XRR3IAW0JrtnDCvQbKsjkeWutt47VVw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IG65quVBxTTW7hGSoOwT0nsrnH3m1DVwj1jt6n6VfStx5ljCNhhA3t5txZF1sMBHWr1y+rn9g== X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:7145:b0:a2c:4e5c:8b94 with SMTP id z5-20020a170906714500b00a2c4e5c8b94mr3875496ejj.56.1705419205784; Tue, 16 Jan 2024 07:33:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.219.3] ([78.8.192.131]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id hy7-20020a1709068a6700b00a280944f775sm6607310ejc.153.2024.01.16.07.33.23 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 16 Jan 2024 07:33:25 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2024 15:33:22 +0000 (GMT) From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" To: Jeff Law cc: Andrew Pinski , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Andrew Waterman , Jim Wilson , Kito Cheng , Palmer Dabbelt Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] RISC-V/testsuite: Also verify if-conversion runs for pr105314.c In-Reply-To: <2e8eae88-7853-4b97-bd2c-d32742c2ea16@gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <2e8eae88-7853-4b97-bd2c-d32742c2ea16@gmail.com> 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=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,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 List-Id: On Tue, 16 Jan 2024, Jeff Law wrote: > > It's not clear to me what you mean by an "RTL testcase", i.e. how you'd > > see the testcase changed (or an additional one produced instead) and why, > > please elaborate. Right now we verify that branches are absent from > > output, but not how that happens. > What I'm guessing Andrew is suggesting is the testcase be adjusted so that its > source is RTL rather than C. With that framework you can skip most of the > pipeline and make the test more stable if something changes earlier in the > pipeline. > > There aren't a lot of great examples of this and the RTL parser is probably > less stable than the gimple parser. But if you look in gcc.dg/rtl you should > see examples. > > In theory you can take the RTL dump from a pass, massage it and feed it back > into the compiler. Perhaps a good example is rtl/x86_64/ira.c Thanks, I wasn't aware of this feature. > > How are the improvements going to affect the testcase? > > > > If they make it no longer relevant (in which case a replacement testcase > > for the new arrangement will be needed) or require updates, then I think > > it's an expected situation: one of the purposes of the testsuite is to > > make sure we're in control and understand what the consequences of changes > > made are. It's not that the testsuite is cast in stone and not expected > > to change. > > > > I.e. if we expect noce_try_store_flag_mask no longer to trigger, then > > we'll see that in the test results (good!) and we can update the relevant > > test case(s). e.g. by reversing the pass criteria so that we're still in > > control. > I think Andrew's point is that we can still test that the pass does what we > want when presented with RTL in a particular form and isolate the pass from > depending on prior passes in the pipeline either creating or not destroying > the particular form we want to ensure is properly handled. It makes sense to me. > I don't have a strong opinion on this. I certainly see Andrew's point, but > it's also the case that if some work earlier in the RTL or gimple pipeline > comes along and compromises the test, then we'd see the failure and deal with > it. It's pretty standard procedure. I'll be happy to add an RTL test case, also for my recent complementary cset-sext.c addition and maybe other if-conversion pieces recently added. I think that does not preclude arming pr105314.c with RTL scanning though. Maciej