[Bug target/102146] [11 regression] several test cases fails after r11-8940

2023-04-17 Thread linkw at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
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

2023-04-02 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
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

2022-08-24 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
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

2022-08-16 Thread guihaoc at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
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

2022-08-16 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
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

2022-08-16 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
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

2022-08-16 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
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

2022-08-16 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
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

2022-05-19 Thread guihaoc at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
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

2022-05-19 Thread bergner at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
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

2022-05-19 Thread bergner at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
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

2022-04-21 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
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

2022-04-21 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
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

2022-04-13 Thread guihaoc at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
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

2022-04-13 Thread guihaoc at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
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

2022-04-13 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
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

2022-04-12 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
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

2022-04-11 Thread aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
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

2022-04-07 Thread guihaoc at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
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

2022-04-07 Thread guihaoc at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
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

2022-04-07 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
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

2022-04-07 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
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

2021-09-02 Thread guihaoc at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
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

2021-09-01 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102146

Richard Biener  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Priority|P3  |P1
   Target Milestone|--- |11.3