[Bug target/93800] [9/10 Regression] GCC adds unwanted nops to align loops on powerpc 8xx since r9-1623

2020-03-09 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93800

--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek  ---
commit r10-7087-g314b91220a07bd63f13c58e37f1b5b9430a3702b
Author: Martin Liska 
Date:   Mon Mar 9 14:13:04 2020 +0100

Restore alignment in rs6000 target.

PR target/93800
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_option_override_internal):
Remove set of str_align_loops and str_align_jumps as these
should be set in previous 2 conditions in the function.
PR target/93800
* gcc.target/powerpc/pr93800.c: New test.

[Bug target/93800] [9/10 Regression] GCC adds unwanted nops to align loops on powerpc 8xx since r9-1623

2020-03-05 Thread marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93800

--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška  ---
I've got a patch candidate, testing right now.

[Bug target/93800] [9/10 Regression] GCC adds unwanted nops to align loops on powerpc 8xx since r9-1623

2020-03-04 Thread marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93800

Martin Liška  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org  |marxin at gcc dot 
gnu.org

--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška  ---
Sure, let me take a look.

[Bug target/93800] [9/10 Regression] GCC adds unwanted nops to align loops on powerpc 8xx since r9-1623

2020-03-04 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93800

Jakub Jelinek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
   Last reconfirmed||2020-03-04
 CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
   ||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org,
   ||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Summary|[9/10 Regression] GCC adds  |[9/10 Regression] GCC adds
   |unwanted nops to align  |unwanted nops to align
   |loops on powerpc 8xx|loops on powerpc 8xx since
   ||r9-1623
 Ever confirmed|0   |1

--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek  ---
Started with r9-1623-gc518c1025b435e1c593a745036fc9b8ed04c5819.
At first I thought it is because of the rs6000.c changes, where previously it
was using 15 in the last two spots, but now "16" like in the earlier cases, but
most likely it is some other change.  Martin, can you please have a look?