[Bug target/108947] [13 Regression] wrong code with -O2 -fno-forward-propagate and vector compare on riscv64

2023-04-14 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108947

Jakub Jelinek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |FIXED
 CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek  ---
Fixed.

[Bug target/108947] [13 Regression] wrong code with -O2 -fno-forward-propagate and vector compare on riscv64

2023-04-14 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108947

--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits  ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9d1a6119590ef828f9782a7083d03e535bc2f2cf

commit r13-7178-g9d1a6119590ef828f9782a7083d03e535bc2f2cf
Author: Jakub Jelinek 
Date:   Fri Apr 14 09:20:49 2023 +0200

combine: Fix AND handling for WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS targets [PR109040]

The following testcase is miscompiled on riscv since the addition
of *mvconst_internal define_insn_and_split.
We have:
(insn 36 35 39 2 (set (mem/c:SI (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 65 frame)
(const_int -64 [0xffc0])) [2  S4 A128])
(reg:SI 166)) "pr109040.c":9:11 178 {*movsi_internal}
 (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:SI 166)
(nil)))
(insn 39 36 40 2 (set (reg:SI 171)
(zero_extend:SI (mem/c:HI (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 65 frame)
(const_int -64 [0xffc0])) [0  S2 A128])))
"pr109040.c":9:11 111 {*zero_extendhisi2}
 (nil))
and RTL DSE's replace_read since r0-86337-g18b526e806ab6455 handles
even different modes like in the above case, and so it optimizes it into:
(insn 47 35 39 2 (set (reg:HI 175)
(subreg:HI (reg:SI 166) 0)) "pr109040.c":9:11 179 {*movhi_internal}
 (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:SI 166)
(nil)))
(insn 39 47 40 2 (set (reg:SI 171)
(zero_extend:SI (reg:HI 175))) "pr109040.c":9:11 111
{*zero_extendhisi2}
 (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:HI 175)
(nil)))
Pseudo 166 is result of AND with 0x8084c constant (forced into a register).
Combine attempts to combine the AND with the insn 47 above created by DSE,
and turns it because of WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS and its assumption that
all
the subword operations are actually done on word mode into:
(set (subreg:SI (reg:HI 175) 0)
(and:SI (reg:SI 167 [ m ])
(reg:SI 168)))
and later on the ZERO_EXTEND is thrown away.

We then see
(and:SI (subreg:SI (reg:HI 175) 0) (const_int 0x84c))
and optimize that into
(subreg:SI (and:HI (reg:HI 175) (const_int 0x84c)) 0)
which is still fine, in WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS the AND in HImode
will set all upper bits up to BITS_PER_WORD to zeros.

But later on simplify_binary_operation_1 or simplify_and_const_int_1
sees that because nonzero_bits ((reg:HI 175), HImode) == 0x84c, we can
optimize the AND into (reg:HI 175).  That isn't correct, because while
the low 16 bits of that REG are known to have all bits but 0x84c cleared,
we don't know that all the upper 16 bits are all clear as well.
So, for WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS for integral modes smaller than word mode,
we need to check all bits from word_mode in nonzero_bits for the
optimizations.

2023-04-14  Jeff Law  
Jakub Jelinek  

PR target/108947
PR target/109040
* combine.cc (simplify_and_const_int_1): Compute nonzero_bits in
word_mode rather than mode if WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS and mode is
smaller than word_mode.
* simplify-rtx.cc (simplify_context::simplify_binary_operation_1)
: Likewise.

* gcc.dg/pr108947.c: New test.
* gcc.c-torture/execute/pr109040.c: New test.

[Bug target/108947] [13 Regression] wrong code with -O2 -fno-forward-propagate and vector compare on riscv64

2023-04-08 Thread law at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108947

Jeffrey A. Law  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Priority|P3  |P1

--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law  ---
P1 as this look like a latent issue in combine or simplification routines.

[Bug target/108947] [13 Regression] wrong code with -O2 -fno-forward-propagate and vector compare on riscv64

2023-04-05 Thread sjames at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108947

Sam James  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #3 from Sam James  ---
Note that's substantial discussion (including a patch) in dupe PR109040.

[Bug target/108947] [13 Regression] wrong code with -O2 -fno-forward-propagate and vector compare on riscv64

2023-04-05 Thread law at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108947

--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law  ---
*** Bug 109040 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug target/108947] [13 Regression] wrong code with -O2 -fno-forward-propagate and vector compare on riscv64

2023-03-27 Thread marxin at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108947

Martin Liška  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Ever confirmed|0   |1
 CC||rzinsly at ventanamicro dot com
   Last reconfirmed||2023-03-27
   Keywords|needs-bisection |
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW

--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška  ---
Started with r13-4907-g2e886eef7f2b5a same as PR109040.

[Bug target/108947] [13 Regression] wrong code with -O2 -fno-forward-propagate and vector compare on riscv64

2023-02-28 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108947

Richard Biener  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Target Milestone|--- |13.0