Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Fix CTZ unnecessary sign extension [PR #106888]

[Alexandre Oliva <oliva@adacore.com>]

On Feb 20, 2024, Jeff Law <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2/19/24 21:26, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> This backport for gcc-13 is required for pr90838.c to get the expected
>> count of andi instructions on riscv64-elf
.
> In general, shouldn't backports be focused on correctness issues?

*nod*.

> It's unclear what the motivation is for backporting this change into
> gcc-13.

There's this unexpected fail in gcc-13 (pr90838.c), one out of a handful
that we've hit while transitioning our riscv toolchains to gcc-13.

I set out to understand them, I identified the patches that got them to
pass in the trunk, and so I've proposed their backports to fix the fails
in gcc-13.

Surely there are other ways to address each one of the fails.

But even if we choose to just xfail them, or leave them failing noisily,
I've already gone through the process of identifying the fix, so I
figured I might as well share it.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker            https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/
   Free Software Activist                   GNU Toolchain Engineer
More tolerance and less prejudice are key for inclusion and diversity
Excluding neuro-others for not behaving ""normal"" is *not* inclusive