[Bug target/102146] [11 regression] several test cases fails after r11-8940
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102146 --- Comment #23 from Kewen Lin --- *** Bug 105267 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
[Bug target/102146] [11 regression] several test cases fails after r11-8940
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102146 --- Comment #22 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by HaoChen Gui : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0580ea4b7a6dc8ee981b08f936b3ce62c6dfe200 commit r13-6981-g0580ea4b7a6dc8ee981b08f936b3ce62c6dfe200 Author: Haochen Gui Date: Fri Mar 31 12:51:32 2023 +0800 rs6000: Modify test case after mode promotion disabled gcc/testsuite/ PR target/102146 * gcc.target/powerpc/pr56605.c: Modify the match pattern for dump scan.
[Bug target/102146] [11 regression] several test cases fails after r11-8940
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102146 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED --- Comment #21 from Segher Boessenkool --- Closing as fixed then (pr56605.c still fails on older branches, but that is harmless).
[Bug target/102146] [11 regression] several test cases fails after r11-8940
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102146 --- Comment #20 from HaoChen Gui --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #19) > Hi guys, > > What testcases are still failing? I'm a bit lost :-) pr56605.c is still not fixed. +FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/pr56605.c scan-rtl-dump-times combine "(compare:CC ((?:and|zero_extend):(?:DI) ((?:sub)?reg:[SD]I" 1
[Bug target/102146] [11 regression] several test cases fails after r11-8940
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102146 --- Comment #19 from Segher Boessenkool --- Hi guys, What testcases are still failing? I'm a bit lost :-)
[Bug target/102146] [11 regression] several test cases fails after r11-8940
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102146
--- Comment #18 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Segher Boessenkool
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d99d74d8b1b517784e3b05b271b977eb6603121f
commit r10-10948-gd99d74d8b1b517784e3b05b271b977eb6603121f
Author: Segher Boessenkool
Date: Sun Jan 2 14:08:35 2022 +
rs6000: Disparage lfiwzx and similar
RA now chooses GEN_OR_VSX_REGS in most cases. This is great in most
cases, but we often (or always?) use {l,st}{f,xs}iwzx now, which is
problematic because the integer load and store insns can use cheaper
addressing modes. We can fix that by putting a small penalty on the
instruction alternatives for those.
2022-04-21 Segher Boessenkool
PR target/103197
PR target/102146
* config/rs6000/rs6000.md (zero_extendqi2 for EXTQI):
Disparage
the "Z" alternatives in {l,st}{f,xs}iwzx.
(zero_extendhi2 for EXTHI): Ditto.
(zero_extendsi2 for EXTSI): Ditto.
(*movsi_internal1): Ditto.
(*mov_internal1 for QHI): Ditto.
(movsd_hardfloat): Ditto.
(cherry picked from commit 26fa464f42622c60d6929720dd37143a21054ede)
[Bug target/102146] [11 regression] several test cases fails after r11-8940
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102146 --- Comment #17 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Segher Boessenkool : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:72cf56c7cfefaf1b074bb70e42890cf1191c46a1 commit r11-10208-g72cf56c7cfefaf1b074bb70e42890cf1191c46a1 Author: Segher Boessenkool Date: Thu Apr 21 18:35:32 2022 + rs6000/testsuite: xfail bswap-brw.c This testcase does not generate anywhere near optimal code for 32-bit code. For p10 it actually now fails this testcase, after the previous patch. Let's xfail it. 2022-04-21 Segher Boessenkool gcc/testsuite/ PR target/103197 PR target/102146 * gcc.target/powerpc/bswap-brw.c: Add xfail on scan-assembler for -m32. (cherry picked from commit 748d46cd049c89a799f99f14547267ebae915af6)
[Bug target/102146] [11 regression] several test cases fails after r11-8940
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102146
--- Comment #16 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Segher Boessenkool
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2eb21e7349cda2885438463f045f6729a47039e8
commit r11-10207-g2eb21e7349cda2885438463f045f6729a47039e8
Author: Segher Boessenkool
Date: Sun Jan 2 14:08:35 2022 +
rs6000: Disparage lfiwzx and similar
RA now chooses GEN_OR_VSX_REGS in most cases. This is great in most
cases, but we often (or always?) use {l,st}{f,xs}iwzx now, which is
problematic because the integer load and store insns can use cheaper
addressing modes. We can fix that by putting a small penalty on the
instruction alternatives for those.
2022-04-21 Segher Boessenkool
PR target/103197
PR target/102146
* config/rs6000/rs6000.md (zero_extendqi2 for EXTQI):
Disparage
the "Z" alternatives in {l,st}{f,xs}iwzx.
(zero_extendhi2 for EXTHI): Ditto.
(zero_extendsi2 for EXTSI): Ditto.
(*movsi_internal1): Ditto.
(*mov_internal1 for QHI): Ditto.
(movsd_hardfloat): Ditto.
(cherry picked from commit 26fa464f42622c60d6929720dd37143a21054ede)
[Bug target/102146] [11 regression] several test cases fails after r11-8940
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102146 --- Comment #15 from HaoChen Gui --- As r12-8128 was revoked, failure of pr56605.c is still not fixed.
[Bug target/102146] [11 regression] several test cases fails after r11-8940
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102146 --- Comment #14 from Peter Bergner --- (In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #13) > What's the status of these test cases now, given all of the fizes applied so > far? Can we marked this as FIXED? Ping.
[Bug target/102146] [11 regression] several test cases fails after r11-8940
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102146 --- Comment #13 from Peter Bergner --- What's the status of these test cases now, given all of the fizes applied so far? Can we marked this as FIXED?
[Bug target/102146] [11 regression] several test cases fails after r11-8940
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102146 --- Comment #12 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Segher Boessenkool : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:748d46cd049c89a799f99f14547267ebae915af6 commit r12-8222-g748d46cd049c89a799f99f14547267ebae915af6 Author: Segher Boessenkool Date: Thu Apr 21 18:35:32 2022 + rs6000/testsuite: xfail bswap-brw.c This testcase does not generate anywhere near optimal code for 32-bit code. For p10 it actually now fails this testcase, after the previous patch. Let's xfail it. 2022-04-21 Segher Boessenkool gcc/testsuite/ PR target/103197 PR target/102146 * gcc.target/powerpc/bswap-brw.c: Add xfail on scan-assembler for -m32.
[Bug target/102146] [11 regression] several test cases fails after r11-8940
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102146
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Segher Boessenkool :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:26fa464f42622c60d6929720dd37143a21054ede
commit r12-8221-g26fa464f42622c60d6929720dd37143a21054ede
Author: Segher Boessenkool
Date: Sun Jan 2 14:08:35 2022 +
rs6000: Disparage lfiwzx and similar
RA now chooses GEN_OR_VSX_REGS in most cases. This is great in most
cases, but we often (or always?) use {l,st}{f,xs}iwzx now, which is
problematic because the integer load and store insns can use cheaper
addressing modes. We can fix that by putting a small penalty on the
instruction alternatives for those.
2022-04-21 Segher Boessenkool
PR target/103197
PR target/102146
* config/rs6000/rs6000.md (zero_extendqi2 for EXTQI):
Disparage
the "Z" alternatives in {l,st}{f,xs}iwzx.
(zero_extendhi2 for EXTHI): Ditto.
(zero_extendsi2 for EXTSI): Ditto.
(*movsi_internal1): Ditto.
(*mov_internal1 for QHI): Ditto.
(movsd_hardfloat): Ditto.
[Bug target/102146] [11 regression] several test cases fails after r11-8940
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102146 --- Comment #10 from HaoChen Gui --- (In reply to HaoChen Gui from comment #9) > Could you backport the patch to GCC11? Thanks. Please ignore it as the patch has problem. Thanks.
[Bug target/102146] [11 regression] several test cases fails after r11-8940
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102146 --- Comment #9 from HaoChen Gui --- Could you backport the patch to GCC11? Thanks.
[Bug target/102146] [11 regression] several test cases fails after r11-8940
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102146 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|11.3|11.4 Priority|P1 |P2 --- Comment #8 from Richard Biener --- Defered to 11.4.
[Bug target/102146] [11 regression] several test cases fails after r11-8940
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102146 --- Comment #7 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Alexandre Oliva : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6b7cc7294770ecb57c0f3a116a27ce1aaff170b5 commit r12-8128-g6b7cc7294770ecb57c0f3a116a27ce1aaff170b5 Author: Alexandre Oliva Date: Tue Apr 12 22:41:45 2022 -0300 ppc: testsuite: PROMOTE_MODE fallout pr56605 [PR102146] The test expects a compare of DImode values, but after the removal of PROMOTE_MODE from rs6000/, we get SImode. Adjust the expectations. for gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog PR target/102146 * gcc.target/powerpc/pr56605.c: Accept SImode compare operand.
[Bug target/102146] [11 regression] several test cases fails after r11-8940
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102146 Alexandre Oliva changed: What|Removed |Added CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #6 from Alexandre Oliva --- I confirm that segher's patch restores the expected insns in prefix-no-update.
[Bug target/102146] [11 regression] several test cases fails after r11-8940
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102146 --- Comment #5 from HaoChen Gui --- For prefix-no-update.c, the patch Segher proposed in PR103197 could fix it.
[Bug target/102146] [11 regression] several test cases fails after r11-8940
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102146 --- Comment #4 from HaoChen Gui --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2) > What's the status on the remaining failures? For pr56605.c，I already submitted a patch. Waiting for review. https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-February/590958.html
[Bug target/102146] [11 regression] several test cases fails after r11-8940
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102146 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- Looking at my 6 days old powerpc64le-linux testresults, I see from gcc.target/powerpc/ FAILures FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/compress-float-ppc-pic.c scan-assembler lfs FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/compress-float-ppc.c scan-assembler lfs FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/fusion-p10-stst.c scan-assembler-times std 4,8(3)ntstd 6,16(3) 1 FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/fusion-p10-stst.c scan-assembler-times stfd 1,8(3)ntstfd 3,16(3) 1 FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/fusion-p10-stst.c scan-assembler-times stw 4,4(3)ntstw 6,8(3) 1 FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/lhs-1.c scan-assembler-times nop 3 FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/lhs-2.c scan-assembler ori 1,1,0 FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/pr56605.c scan-rtl-dump-times combine "(compare:CC ((?:and|zero_extend):(?:DI) ((?:sub)?reg:[SD]I" 1 FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/prefix-no-update.c scan-assembler-times mlwzM 2 FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/prefix-no-update.c scan-assembler-times mplwzM 2 FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/prefix-no-update.c scan-assembler-times mpstwM 2 FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/prefix-no-update.c scan-assembler-times mstwM 2 FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/rlwimi-2.c scan-assembler-times (?n)^s+[a-z] 20217 FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/rs6000-fpint.c scan-assembler-not stfiwx Comparing with GCC 11.1.0 results, that is +FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/fusion-p10-stst.c scan-assembler-times std 4,8(3)ntstd 6,16(3) 1 +FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/fusion-p10-stst.c scan-assembler-times stfd 1,8(3)ntstfd 3,16(3) 1 +FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/fusion-p10-stst.c scan-assembler-times stw 4,4(3)ntstw 6,8(3) 1 +FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/pr56605.c scan-rtl-dump-times combine "(compare:CC ((?:and|zero_extend):(?:DI) ((?:sub)?reg:[SD]I" 1 +FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/prefix-no-update.c scan-assembler-times mlwzM 2 +FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/prefix-no-update.c scan-assembler-times mplwzM 2 +FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/prefix-no-update.c scan-assembler-times mpstwM 2 +FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/prefix-no-update.c scan-assembler-times mstwM 2 regression.
[Bug target/102146] [11 regression] several test cases fails after r11-8940
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102146 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||testsuite-fail --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- What's the status on the remaining failures?
[Bug target/102146] [11 regression] several test cases fails after r11-8940
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102146 --- Comment #1 from HaoChen Gui --- For pr81348.c, it was already fixed by r11-8941. Segher backported it. https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100952#c12 PASS: gcc.target/powerpc/pr81348.c (test for excess errors) PASS: gcc.target/powerpc/pr81348.c scan-assembler \\mlha\\M PASS: gcc.target/powerpc/pr81348.c scan-assembler \\mmtvsrwa\\M
[Bug target/102146] [11 regression] several test cases fails after r11-8940
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102146 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1 Target Milestone|--- |11.3
