From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 423F83858D39 for ; Fri, 24 Nov 2023 08:09:52 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 423F83858D39 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.vnet.ibm.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.vnet.ibm.com ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 423F83858D39 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=148.163.158.5 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1700813394; cv=none; b=L6U6Co+VldImnWJhmLYlFv5jqUNsGYYAMkj1xVzLmC9WimpmHmqekRvLO2UtGEhi0sbDSGnVJCSBUe8p+VKWNKpHczqNwKUB5PrRmIwacmlkTkAwbXjsamCy2FN2CEnUW8lkGUJUnxd7R60J/RIT79kIUAU60EKxFLsmau78eS4= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1700813394; c=relaxed/simple; bh=3IJIwk5l7n0nXQpuwb60j5PkUMBycZTiUXNnAVHjp8A=; h=DKIM-Signature:Message-ID:Date:Subject:From:To:MIME-Version; b=Kjh7tpRC5SWfOkK/DTMK/ZcGAyIxt/m5bKQBzUXuGVh0YIvbQV8TTMliTC+VyDkzDTqgbs5wo4czpWX77OGfQ8gz3SENw8BBaOJIjG1JwLzwF205E6wWbG3Hz0h84UeeO0i+CPoCyC7+uGq7J2Ed6BokfqOyzwgIfWK+fwz3ISU= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org Received: from pps.filterd (m0353725.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 3AO6HkZF022314; Fri, 24 Nov 2023 08:09:50 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=message-id : date : subject : from : to : cc : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=pp1; bh=pFHyeKhsf4jy8RKz5aDFjCPsOvNkYAjeZDsjkJ3x5KE=; b=RbFCr0r/UJip2JxBJvr1ZKO9M/JTAJJ2kbwlR2V7a0jQPu9b3/bq5XAYIozkrvjWyF8D hf/8xrMkIyE4GFPs5IJZcklsP9x7cKCbJgLoEpyo5SrYK3ynwqkoL2IZyfgITlogBdjn njaO04ZjqLWK1afv8i2W7Q8JmfuoDXrCOvSiWhZXz+1AF7IL27lB9Fi1fialFw0ftwdt OyCuEh00M4bZSKaniMvsVyKIO0G1XbtmQVKp1tPmfg6N/hWJ+EZ9tTO2wBuXdXDLVPwE U27wzRuBrLShze1QD1JUBn76mgUVCexAVS/LSp8aH3hsF7dYc8hVGK89eCXoQcfZjool ug== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3ujpedjf3m-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 24 Nov 2023 08:09:49 +0000 Received: from m0353725.ppops.net (m0353725.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 3AO80uZK008129; Fri, 24 Nov 2023 08:09:48 GMT Received: from ppma11.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (db.9e.1632.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [50.22.158.219]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3ujpedjf30-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 24 Nov 2023 08:09:48 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma11.dal12v.mail.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma11.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 3AO6J8bL008484; Fri, 24 Nov 2023 08:09:48 GMT Received: from smtprelay07.dal12v.mail.ibm.com ([172.16.1.9]) by ppma11.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3ufaa2ku05-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 24 Nov 2023 08:09:48 +0000 Received: from smtpav06.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (smtpav06.dal12v.mail.ibm.com [10.241.53.105]) by smtprelay07.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 3AO89lZ746662158 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 24 Nov 2023 08:09:47 GMT Received: from smtpav06.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id A922058055; Fri, 24 Nov 2023 08:09:47 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav06.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50F4658043; Fri, 24 Nov 2023 08:09:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.109.195.154] (unknown [9.109.195.154]) by smtpav06.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 24 Nov 2023 08:09:45 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <2a2060c7-5288-422d-ba1d-dfe4306b4c3f@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2023 13:39:44 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: Discussion about arm testcase failures seen with patch for PR111673 From: Surya Kumari Jangala To: Richard Sandiford , Peter Bergner Cc: GCC Development , vmakarov@redhat.com References: <51f4b26f-1462-45c2-8106-fbfe8dc61975@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <51f4b26f-1462-45c2-8106-fbfe8dc61975@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: ycG4ObTyIiEgDvFZPIbJqRarZuu3ABfc X-Proofpoint-GUID: zL3fHTpNcOSOohmM6s7x4rCk7lzryjJs Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Proofpoint-UnRewURL: 0 URL was un-rewritten MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.272,Aquarius:18.0.987,Hydra:6.0.619,FMLib:17.11.176.26 definitions=2023-11-23_15,2023-11-22_01,2023-05-22_02 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 bulkscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 priorityscore=1501 clxscore=1011 mlxscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 malwarescore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2311060000 definitions=main-2311240063 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_EF,KAM_NUMSUBJECT,KAM_SHORT,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: Hi Richard, Ping. Please let me know if the test failure that I mentioned in the mail below can be handled by changing the expected generated code. I am not conversant with arm, and hence would appreciate your help. Regards, Surya On 03/11/23 4:58 pm, Surya Kumari Jangala wrote: > Hi Richard, > I had submitted a patch for review (https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-October/631849.html) > regarding scaling save/restore costs of callee save registers with block > frequency in the IRA pass (PR111673). > > This patch has been approved by VMakarov > (https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-October/632089.html). > > With this patch, we are seeing performance improvements with spec on x86 > (exchange: 5%, xalancbmk: 2.5%) and on Power (perlbench: 5.57%). > > I received a mail from Linaro about some failures seen in the CI pipeline with > this patch. I have analyzed the failures and I wish to discuss the analysis with you. > > One failure reported by the Linaro CI is: > > FAIL: gcc.target/arm/pr111235.c scan-assembler-times ldrexd\tr[0-9]+, r[0-9]+, \\[r[0-9]+\\] 2 > > The diff in the assembly between trunk and patch is: > > 93c93 > < push {r4, r5} > --- >> push {fp} > 95c95 > < ldrexd r4, r5, [r0] > --- >> ldrexd fp, ip, [r0] > 99c99 > < pop {r4, r5} > --- >> ldr fp, [sp], #4 > > > The test fails with patch because the ldrexd insn uses fp & ip registers instead > of r[0-9]+ > > But the code produced by patch is better because it is pushing and restoring only > one register (fp) instead of two registers (r4, r5). Hence, this test can be > modified to allow it to pass on arm. Please let me know what you think. > > If you need more information, please let me know. I will be sending separate mails > for the other test failures. > > Regards, > Surya > > >