From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pinskia@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-pl1-x62d.google.com (mail-pl1-x62d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62d])
	by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F1AD3858D35
	for <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>; Fri, 11 Nov 2022 16:39:09 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 6F1AD3858D35
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com
Received: by mail-pl1-x62d.google.com with SMTP id l2so4609763pld.13
        for <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>; Fri, 11 Nov 2022 08:39:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20210112;
        h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references
         :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to;
        bh=+LPNsVrCw/tGh8esT0V9347gFgwt3aUMiLirlwEzklQ=;
        b=M2V6YKcHdPZ2IVW24aYeakYl+6hol1JhMgY1wjsEaa4nEuViLaB54zjTbXFK4SBe2u
         7Czfdq61SZ+tPwdaVpnEZ3gPXycnvMgZtz1abkS+03aEdMBqEP7bQjWcEOhJqWfBnBeh
         dYzFaENCTtxtMipcir9bPrn2MXlJnXTZNO+V4MDUCgdjPBYt4eXIlCAkyg5mTXy3GoEE
         sZWStdQ2ZMaZO+1B2zNSyOK4Wa8HYjcm05QX4o8+spyPcUn7XZu8mzBMEa7NlZN3XTlR
         5mD1lP8vrC8aVpzh/8tqK4kp+Ja7qAOHf1qVmt9/hfJhy9OXdmgnh9wcMwmnEF2oW0dE
         WdIA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=1e100.net; s=20210112;
        h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references
         :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id
         :reply-to;
        bh=+LPNsVrCw/tGh8esT0V9347gFgwt3aUMiLirlwEzklQ=;
        b=oZrPDHFndkv0lwPZiaZ+Pu5lvSN3CYy9ddFJ3LiANp5yMcUErpcthBkVQu8kriTwqX
         TfZuPQWhZOdniycX057nr4eYxIrzql+Xfh+sagNIFSynnuput8AtGRcbYWaywGsHd7q+
         i8ELCUmYVn/4qKo5Ym3nczweoUqQUVeK28AWT5PX1akYCWHdqeuL4FZb/iPuyGsn3vbt
         Q5iGnZitLZrCH0KxTam0Yzt4cIXffy6BL0fmHc9A9oFZ2QmE6Hm3/XufAexaQYStTZ4J
         y+pGQUXHr5Ip2dVQfidpzo4CJwtYeHWlLPXSm+aVGcb0GNWKuuiOXcSux6HdEAdkdB7l
         /7yg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5pku2z+a5dti1klVPjBLNbMm56ox4hptYc0qaAws0ahBFuhf5fMl
	Gr9gxSH9AO8SWIybQxlslWj9S+uhN4AjTdvxN2JLXqz9SN8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf7/CSOkklfk7wjSZtq/IzecvkE+xgmT3vZGiqenWmpygsm3kZIq5V7gNrn9p1RdxLK4CwAJr5o74gCeMePm07o=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:5801:b0:209:46fe:871b with SMTP id
 h1-20020a17090a580100b0020946fe871bmr2741286pji.163.1668184748154; Fri, 11
 Nov 2022 08:39:08 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALkvSf9Vk3N1_NdsQCJWVKwrvT3syMk65h2ZD8jFkNtxjS6w2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <037c79a6-037a-768d-3794-abd065d41831@inria.fr>
In-Reply-To: <037c79a6-037a-768d-3794-abd065d41831@inria.fr>
From: Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2022 08:38:56 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+=Sn1=KGiO6rF_HQFc8dra8FYcBAc7zu01XyXOGiDx3E3qqeA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Different outputs in Gimple pass dump generated by two different architectures
To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: Kevin Lee <kevinl@rivosinc.com>, Marc Glisse <marc.glisse@inria.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,KAM_SHORT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP 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: <gcc.gcc.gnu.org>

On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 12:57 AM Marc Glisse via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2022, Kevin Lee wrote:
>
> > While looking at the failure for gcc.dg/uninit-pred-9_b.c, I observed that
> > x86-64 and risc-v has a different output for the gimple pass since
> > r12-4790-g4b3a325f07acebf4
> > <https://gcc.gnu.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=gcc.git;h=4b3a325f07acebf4>.
>
> Probably since earlier.
>
> > What would be causing the difference? Is this intended? Link
> > <https://godbolt.org/z/eWxnYsK1z> for details. Thank you!
>
> See LOGICAL_OP_NON_SHORT_CIRCUIT in fold-const.cc (and various discussions
> on the topic in mailing lists and bugzilla).

I filed https://gcc.gnu.org/PR107642 to cover the issues around
LOGICAL_OP_NON_SHORT_CIRCUIT and BRANCH_COST.
I hope to get some time in the GCC 14 timeframe to flush out some of
these target macro/hooks issue where the
definitions are not so clear.

Thanks,
Andrew

>
> --
> Marc Glisse