[Bug tree-optimization/83195] [8 regression] pr82929.c scan for "Merging successful" fail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83195 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- Fixed.
[Bug tree-optimization/83195] [8 regression] pr82929.c scan for "Merging successful" fail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83195 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Wed Nov 29 17:38:54 2017 New Revision: 255247 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255247=gcc=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/83195 * gcc.dg/pr82929.c: Don't check for "Merging successful" on arm. * gcc.dg/pr82929-2.c: New test. Added: trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr82929-2.c Modified: trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr82929.c
[Bug tree-optimization/83195] [8 regression] pr82929.c scan for "Merging successful" fail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83195 --- Comment #4 from Sudakshina Das --- I think this is the only test that fails on arm.
[Bug tree-optimization/83195] [8 regression] pr82929.c scan for "Merging successful" fail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83195 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed||2017-11-28 Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 42737 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42737=edit gcc8-pr83195.patch Untested fix.
[Bug tree-optimization/83195] [8 regression] pr82929.c scan for "Merging successful" fail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83195 ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org --- I agree it's simpler to skip the test on arm, unless we want to go down the route of testing the movmisalign optab availability, which seems yucky.
[Bug tree-optimization/83195] [8 regression] pr82929.c scan for "Merging successful" fail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83195
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That is because arm is cheating:
proc check_effective_target_non_strict_align {} {
# On ARM, the default is to use STRICT_ALIGNMENT, but there
# are interfaces defined for misaligned access and thus
# depending on the architecture levels unaligned access is
# available.
if [istarget "arm*-*-*"] {
return [check_effective_target_arm_unaligned]
}
return [check_no_compiler_messages non_strict_align assembly {
char *y;
typedef char __attribute__ ((__aligned__(__BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT__))) c;
c *z;
void foo(void) { z = (c *) y; }
} "-Wcast-align"]
}
proc check_effective_target_store_merge { } {
if { [is-effective-target non_strict_align ] && [is-effective-target
int32plus] } {
return 1
}
return 0
}
The testcase really cares about:
bool allow_unaligned_store
= !STRICT_ALIGNMENT && PARAM_VALUE (PARAM_STORE_MERGING_ALLOW_UNALIGNED);
bool allow_unaligned_load = allow_unaligned_store;
If that is not true, then in this case the optimization is not beneficial.
Is this the only store merging testcase that fails on arm?
I'd prefer not to add __builtin_assume_aligned and similar to the testcase so
that it tests the !STRICT_ALIGNMENT behavior (perhaps we can have another one
with that builtin), so do I need to uglify by using { target { store_merge && {
! arm*-*-* } } } ?
[Bug tree-optimization/83195] [8 regression] pr82929.c scan for "Merging successful" fail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83195 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target||arm Component|regression |tree-optimization Target Milestone|--- |8.0
