From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35FE7385DC00 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 18:32:21 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 35FE7385DC00 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=richard.sandiford@arm.com Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AB831FB; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 11:32:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (e121540-lin.manchester.arm.com [10.32.98.126]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D35463F52E; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 11:32:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Richard Sandiford To: Peter Bergner Mail-Followup-To: Peter Bergner , Segher Boessenkool , gcc-patches , "ian\@airs.com" , richard.sandiford@arm.com Cc: Segher Boessenkool , gcc-patches , "ian\@airs.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH] lower-subreg: PR94123, SVN r273240, causes gcc.target/powerpc/pr87507.c to fail References: <20ee8944-f0bf-cec1-e3d1-5dd5e9c6a4ef@linux.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2020 19:32:18 +0100 In-Reply-To: (Peter Bergner's message of "Wed, 1 Apr 2020 12:48:53 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Status: No, score=-29.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, GIT_PATCH_0, GIT_PATCH_1, GIT_PATCH_2, GIT_PATCH_3, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) 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: Wed, 01 Apr 2020 18:32:22 -0000 Peter Bergner writes: > On 3/30/20 3:50 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: >> Peter Bergner via Gcc-patches writes: >>> * lower-subreg.c (pass_lower_subreg3::gate): Remove test for >>> flag_split_wide_types_early. >>> >>> diff --git a/gcc/lower-subreg.c b/gcc/lower-subreg.c >>> index 4c8bc835f93..807ad398b64 100644 >>> --- a/gcc/lower-subreg.c >>> +++ b/gcc/lower-subreg.c >>> @@ -1844,8 +1844,7 @@ public: >>> {} >>> >>> /* opt_pass methods: */ >>> - virtual bool gate (function *) { return flag_split_wide_types >>> - && !flag_split_wide_types_early; } >>> + virtual bool gate (function *) { return flag_split_wide_types != 0; } >>> virtual unsigned int execute (function *) >>> { >>> decompose_multiword_subregs (true); >> >> Looks good to me with the s/ != 0// that Segher mentioned. >> >> With this change, the only remaining function of -fsplit-wide-types-early >> is to act as a double lock on one pass. IMO it'd make more sense to remove >> that double lock and make -fsplit-wide-types-early and -fsplit-wide-types >> act as independent options, a bit like -fschedule-insns{,2}. > > Have we come to consensus on whether to split the options or not? > I think Segher is against it given we actually have 3 passes of > lower-subreg and -fsplit-wide-types would control the 1st and 3rd > passes and -fsplit-wide-types-early would control the second. > That does seem strange to me too. I guess the name of the option is a bit weird, since it'll control the middle pass of three. That's going to be true either way though. We're talking about having independent options controlling independent passes, which seems like a Good Thing in general and doesn't seem that strange to me in this case. But I'm certainly happy to yield given the strong opinions the other way. Thanks, Richard