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 031083858CDB for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2023 11:28:47 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 031083858CDB 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 031083858CDB 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=1699010938; cv=none; b=eAJpkTU4U9EFgWzvpNvlKnY7rEZ3neh1iBkaY8nPPJS8bicDjgRCPzeGCF8Mx8773ks5haA5pao+0daiO8msjrYHd1xnTmkCPyXQ7DHj4ImzG+FmjV1/EfRJS9icFbivqOhDd40cVadvqCwHqxkO7yhDA44LXyCn7c7O2TpEfqA= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1699010938; c=relaxed/simple; bh=bqsV1PCSL32ZF++GYiIRl3tat6qYTid33Z9/OhVzAfQ=; h=DKIM-Signature:Message-ID:Date:To:From:Subject:MIME-Version; b=RdAAT+goELuwExzGx56NRmKLWe+9wjqlDnm+qeE6mb4JhhCH7ixIXztDhr615OGnGA3V3q8RR4Q1EMw7w7WJYkZWcodySNpMp37m5ZYDhvlImEcKmd2BdCSaLN8RVvy+XN6RG2E6rEAHILzN3IVEIPep5GCm+lQA2ISOA4zT38E= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org Received: from pps.filterd (m0356516.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 3A3BG1ub009335; Fri, 3 Nov 2023 11:28:46 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=message-id : date : to : cc : from : subject : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=pp1; bh=VoepL24Pv3bEp3jwqx8q0UnGx5hgNlJgKRtPBHXORRA=; b=fxCpNtId+Vmb7FkwYS5NYvsNfZUwBkLNrTtIrqAiSDtC5fNHWnwX7FHdFWOWN3/5naX+ pamLAlKy1CwvpaOlHY/M027vIIrWYxXgXDJ2coSgI6rMxbJRxADg6WWH9pmn35LyWYl7 ZO7EN5Y0+jtl4cFmH+Qsjxrv210aNtNUN2teUZ7NNw74eiIs2p9LqdBoaO/IwJTm/chs GySqwzgxnc07HELMN1dpJ9/TQSVXSTOhpM8CC5JM70lPcuapiXSYdWfF8dDQDCgGB/j0 kG4WvrnAx6/bc768tUpfz2IoEp5wE18Qs5wO9ceZU4T6Ts8oYkax1m/M1uEpM1SPBu1g ag== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3u4yu4gbux-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 03 Nov 2023 11:28:45 +0000 Received: from m0356516.ppops.net (m0356516.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 3A3BGDq0010012; Fri, 3 Nov 2023 11:28:45 GMT Received: from ppma12.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (dc.9e.1632.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [50.22.158.220]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3u4yu4gbun-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 03 Nov 2023 11:28:45 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma12.dal12v.mail.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma12.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 3A3B17Wu000591; Fri, 3 Nov 2023 11:28:44 GMT Received: from smtprelay07.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com ([172.16.1.74]) by ppma12.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3u1cmtnw1e-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 03 Nov 2023 11:28:44 +0000 Received: from smtpav03.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (smtpav03.dal12v.mail.ibm.com [10.241.53.102]) by smtprelay07.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 3A3BShRg13435406 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 3 Nov 2023 11:28:44 GMT Received: from smtpav03.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3D7258056; Fri, 3 Nov 2023 11:28:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav03.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 328A558061; Fri, 3 Nov 2023 11:28:42 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.109.195.201] (unknown [9.109.195.201]) by smtpav03.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 3 Nov 2023 11:28:41 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <51f4b26f-1462-45c2-8106-fbfe8dc61975@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2023 16:58:40 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US To: Richard Sandiford , Peter Bergner Cc: GCC Development , vmakarov@redhat.com From: Surya Kumari Jangala Subject: Discussion about arm testcase failures seen with patch for PR111673 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: _KM_uNxfPPHTTzw4jgF0T0YfXm1NQSMz X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: w1Hb9S9vRphjUmqqL0DR73JYDTP_nIII 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=2023-11-03_11,2023-11-02_03,2023-05-22_02 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 bulkscore=0 clxscore=1011 mlxscore=0 malwarescore=0 impostorscore=0 suspectscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxlogscore=811 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 priorityscore=1501 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2310240000 definitions=main-2311030095 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.0 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, 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