Re: PING [PATCH] RX movsicc degrade fix

[Jakub Jelinek]

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 01:36:54PM +, Sebastian Perta wrote:
> Hi Jakub,
> 
> >>Still missing . at the end of the above line.
> 
> The sentence continues on the next line (so the "." is there):
> 
> +* config/rx/constraints.md (CALL_OP_SYMBOL_REF): Added new constraint
> +to allow or block "symbol_ref" depending on the value of TARGET_JSR.
> 
>  I think this is OK, please confirm.

You're right, confused by your mailer wrapping lines in between
"new" and "constraint" around.  Sorry.

Jakub

Re: PING [PATCH] RX movsicc degrade fix

[Jakub Jelinek]

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 01:27:24PM -, Sebastian Perta wrote:
> --- ChangeLog (revision 257583)
> +++ ChangeLog (working copy)
> @@ -129,8 +129,7 @@
>  
>  2018-02-09  Sebastian Perta  
>  
> - * config/rx.md: updated "movsicc" expand to be matched by GCC
> - * testsuite/gcc.target/rx/movsicc.c: new test case
> + * config/rx/rx.md (movsicc): Update expander to be matched by GCC.
>  
>  2018-02-09  Peter Bergner  
>  
> @@ -143,10 +142,10 @@
>  
>  2018-02-09  Sebastian Perta  
>  
> - * config/rx/constraints.md: added new constraint CALL_OP_SYMBOL_REF 
> - to allow or block "symbol_ref" depending on value of TARGET_JSR
> - * config/rx/rx.md: use CALL_OP_SYMBOL_REF in call_internal and 
> - call_value_internal insns
> + * config/rx/constraints.md (CALL_OP_SYMBOL_REF): Added new constraint 

Still missing . at the end of the above line.

Otherwise LGTM.

Jakub

RE: PING [PATCH] RX movsicc degrade fix

[Sebastian Perta]

Hi Jakub,

>>Still missing . at the end of the above line.

The sentence continues on the next line (so the "." is there):

+* config/rx/constraints.md (CALL_OP_SYMBOL_REF): Added new constraint
+to allow or block "symbol_ref" depending on the value of TARGET_JSR.

 I think this is OK, please confirm.

Best Regards,
Sebastian

> -Original Message-
> From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
> Sent: 12 February 2018 13:30
> To: Sebastian Perta <sebastian.pe...@renesas.com>
> Cc: Nick Clifton <ni...@redhat.com>; gcc-patches  patc...@gcc.gnu.org>
> Subject: Re: PING [PATCH] RX movsicc degrade fix
>
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 01:27:24PM -, Sebastian Perta wrote:
> > --- ChangeLog(revision 257583)
> > +++ ChangeLog(working copy)
> > @@ -129,8 +129,7 @@
> >
> >  2018-02-09  Sebastian Perta  <sebastian.pe...@renesas.com>
> >
> > -* config/rx.md: updated "movsicc" expand to be matched by GCC
> > -* testsuite/gcc.target/rx/movsicc.c: new test case
> > +* config/rx/rx.md (movsicc): Update expander to be matched by
> GCC.
> >
> >  2018-02-09  Peter Bergner  <berg...@vnet.ibm.com>
> >
> > @@ -143,10 +142,10 @@
> >
> >  2018-02-09  Sebastian Perta  <sebastian.pe...@renesas.com>
> >
> > -* config/rx/constraints.md: added new constraint
> CALL_OP_SYMBOL_REF
> > -to allow or block "symbol_ref" depending on value of TARGET_JSR
> > -* config/rx/rx.md: use CALL_OP_SYMBOL_REF in call_internal and
> > -call_value_internal insns
> > +* config/rx/constraints.md (CALL_OP_SYMBOL_REF): Added new
> constraint
>
> Still missing . at the end of the above line.
>
> Otherwise LGTM.
>
> Jakub



Renesas Electronics Europe Ltd, Dukes Meadow, Millboard Road, Bourne End, 
Buckinghamshire, SL8 5FH, UK. Registered in England & Wales under Registered 
No. 04586709.

RE: PING [PATCH] RX movsicc degrade fix

[Sebastian Perta]

a  <sebastian.pe...@renesas.com>
+
+   * gcc.target/rl78/test_addsi3_internal.c: New test.
+
 2018-01-26  Segher Boessenkool  <seg...@kernel.crashing.org>
 
* gcc.target/powerpc/safe-indirect-jump-1.c: Build on all targets.

> -----Original Message-
> From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
> Sent: 12 February 2018 12:45
> To: Sebastian Perta <sebastian.pe...@renesas.com>
> Cc: Nick Clifton <ni...@redhat.com>; gcc-patches  patc...@gcc.gnu.org>
> Subject: Re: PING [PATCH] RX movsicc degrade fix
> 
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 11:06:35AM -, Sebastian Perta wrote:
> > Hi Jakub,
> >
> > Thank you for pointing this out, I'm sorry!
> > Can I create a patch to correct the changelog entries?
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Sebastian
> >
> > >>1) there should be a space between * and the filename
> > The spaces are there (see the changelog), the renesas mail server
removes
> > them sometimes
> 
> They weren't there in what I've fixed.
> See
> https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc/trunk/gcc/ChangeLog?r1=257536=25753
> 5=257536
> 
>   Jakub

Re: PING [PATCH] RX movsicc degrade fix

[Jakub Jelinek]

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 11:06:35AM -, Sebastian Perta wrote:
> Hi Jakub,
> 
> Thank you for pointing this out, I'm sorry!
> Can I create a patch to correct the changelog entries?
> 
> Best Regards,
> Sebastian
>  
> >>1) there should be a space between * and the filename
> The spaces are there (see the changelog), the renesas mail server removes
> them sometimes

They weren't there in what I've fixed.
See 
https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc/trunk/gcc/ChangeLog?r1=257536=257535=257536

Jakub

Re: PING [PATCH] RX movsicc degrade fix

[Oleg Endo]

On Mon, 2018-02-12 at 11:06 +, Sebastian Perta wrote:


> > > 1) there should be a space between * and the filename
> The spaces are there (see the changelog), the renesas mail server
> removes them sometimes

You might want to send around your patches as email attachments.  That
avoids formatting issues.

Cheers,
Oleg

Re: PING [PATCH] RX movsicc degrade fix

[Jakub Jelinek]

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 11:06:35AM -, Sebastian Perta wrote:
> Thank you for pointing this out, I'm sorry!
> Can I create a patch to correct the changelog entries?

Yes, and no need to add a ChangeLog entry for ChangeLog changes ;)

Jakub

RE: PING [PATCH] RX movsicc degrade fix

[Sebastian Perta]

Hi Jakub,

Thank you for pointing this out, I'm sorry!
Can I create a patch to correct the changelog entries?

Best Regards,
Sebastian
 
>>1) there should be a space between * and the filename
The spaces are there (see the changelog), the renesas mail server removes
them sometimes

> -Original Message-
> From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
> Sent: 09 February 2018 18:24
> To: Sebastian Perta <sebastian.pe...@renesas.com>; Nick Clifton
> <ni...@redhat.com>
> Cc: gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
> Subject: Re: PING [PATCH] RX movsicc degrade fix
> 
> On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 02:10:21PM +, Nick Clifton wrote:
> > Hi Sebastian,
> >
> >   Sorry for missing this one.  If it helps in the future, feel free to
ping me
> directly.
> >
> > > +2018-01-09  Sebastian Perta  <sebastian.pe...@renesas.com>
> > > +
> > > + *config/rx.md: updated "movsicc" expand to be matched by GCC
> > > + *testsuite/gcc.target/rx/movsicc.c: new test case
> >
> > Approved - please apply.
> 
> Note the ChangeLog is incorrect:
> 1) there should be a space between * and the filename
> 2) testsuite/ has its own ChangeLog, so changes for testsuite/ should
>go there and filenames be relative to the testsuite/ directory
> 3) there is no config/rx.md file, you've changed config/rx/rx.md instead
> 4) the format is * filename (what): Description. , so it should be
>   * config/rx/rx.md (movsicc): Update expander to be matched by
> GCC.
> 5) note capital letter after : and full stop at the end.
>   * gcc.target/rx/movsicc.c: New test.
>goes into testsuite/ChangeLog
> 
> Many other of your ChangeLog entries suffer from similar issues.
> 
>   Jakub

Re: PING [PATCH] RX movsicc degrade fix

[Nick Clifton]

Hi Sebastian,

  Sorry for missing this one.  If it helps in the future, feel free to ping me 
directly.

> +2018-01-09  Sebastian Perta  
> +
> + *config/rx.md: updated "movsicc" expand to be matched by GCC
> + *testsuite/gcc.target/rx/movsicc.c: new test case

Approved - please apply.

Cheers
  Nick

PING [PATCH] RX movsicc degrade fix

[Sebastian Perta]

PING

> -Original Message-
> From: Sebastian Perta [mailto:sebastian.pe...@renesas.com]
> Sent: 09 January 2018 14:46
> To: 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org' <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
> Subject: [PATCH] RX movsicc degrade fix
> 
> Hello,
> 
> In recent versions of GCC the define_expand "movsicc" has stopped being
> used by GCC (approx. 4.7.x/4.8.x onwards)
> The reason for this is that the first operand of if_then_else has SI mode
and
> it shouldn't have. If we take a look at movsicc for all other targets we
see this
> is true.
> The fix in rx.md is basically a copy paste from v850.md
> 
> The patch also adds a testcase in gcc.target/rx to make sure this degrade
> does not occur again.
> 
> 
> Regression test is OK with one observation (see below), tested with the
> following command:
> make -k check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS=--target_board=rx-sim
> 
> 
> I have the following fail (which was not present before):
> FAIL: gcc.dg/loop-8.c scan-rtl-dump-times loop2_invariant "Decided" 1
> (found 0 times)
> 
> This is because the patch is effective in this test case and the dump is
not the
> same, I checked the asm code manually and it is OK.
> Is it possible to disable parts of a test case, not the whole test case (*
{ dg-
> final { scan-rtl-dump-times "Decided" 1 "loop2_invariant" } } */  from
loop-8.c
> in this example) for a particular target?
> 
> The total numbers of failures remains the same because the following FAIL
is
> not present anymore with this patch:
> FAIL: gcc.dg/ifcvt-4.c scan-rtl-dump ce1 "2 true changes made"
> 
> 
> Please let me know if this is OK. Thank you!
> 
> Best Regards,
> Sebastian
> 
> 
> Index: ChangeLog
> ==
> =
> --- ChangeLog (revision 256382)
> +++ ChangeLog (working copy)
> @@ -1,3 +1,8 @@
> +2018-01-09  Sebastian Perta  <sebastian.pe...@renesas.com>
> +
> + *config/rx.md: updated "movsicc" expand to be matched by GCC
> + *testsuite/gcc.target/rx/movsicc.c: new test case
> +
>  2018-01-09  Richard Biener  <rguent...@suse.de>
> 
>   PR tree-optimization/83668
> Index: config/rx/rx.md
> ==
> =
> --- config/rx/rx.md   (revision 256382)
> +++ config/rx/rx.md   (working copy)
> @@ -733,12 +733,17 @@
>  (define_expand "movsicc"
>[(parallel
>  [(set (match_operand:SI  0 "register_operand")
> -   (if_then_else:SI (match_operand:SI 1 "comparison_operator")
> +   (if_then_else:SI (match_operand 1 "comparison_operator")
>  (match_operand:SI 2 "nonmemory_operand")
>  (match_operand:SI 3 "nonmemory_operand")))
>   (clobber (reg:CC CC_REG))])]
>""
>  {
> +  /* Make sure that we have an integer comparison...  */
> +  if (GET_MODE (XEXP (operands[1], 0)) != CCmode
> +  && GET_MODE (XEXP (operands[1], 0)) != SImode)
> +FAIL;
> +
>/* One operand must be a constant or a register, the other must be a
> register.  */
>if (   ! CONSTANT_P (operands[2])
>&& ! CONSTANT_P (operands[3])
> Index: testsuite/gcc.target/rx/movsicc.c
> ==
> =
> --- testsuite/gcc.target/rx/movsicc.c (nonexistent)
> +++ testsuite/gcc.target/rx/movsicc.c (working copy)
> @@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
> +/* { dg-do compile } */
> +/* { dg-options "-Os" } */
> +
> +typedef unsigned char u8;
> +typedef unsigned short u16;
> +signed int Xa, Xb;
> +
> +signed int stzreg_beq(int i, int a, int b)
> +{
> +  signed int x;
> +  x = a;
> +  if (i)
> +x = b;
> +  return x;
> +}
> +
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "bne 1f" } } */
> +
> +signed int stzreg_bge(int i, int a, int b, int c)
> +{
> +  signed int x;
> +  x = a;
> +  if (i<c)
> +x = b;
> +  return x;
> +}
> +
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "blt 1f" } } */
> +
> +signed int stzreg_bgt(int i, int a, int b)
> +{
> +  signed int x;
> +  x = a;
> +  if (i<10)
> +x = b;
> +  return x;
> +}
> +
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "ble 1f" } } */
> +
> +signed int stzreg_ble(int i, int a, int b)
> +{
> +  signed int x;
> +  x = a;
> +  if (i>0)
> +x = b;
> +  return x;
> +}
> +
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "bgt 1f" } } */
> +
> +signed int stzreg_blt(int i, int a, int b)
> +{
> +  signed int x;
> +  x = a;
> +  if (i<0)
> +x = b;
> +  return x;
> +}
> +
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "blt 1f" } } */
> +
> +signed int stzreg_bne(int i, int a, int b)
> +{
> +  signed int x;
> +  x = a;
> +  if (!i)
> +x = b;
> +  return x;
> +}
> +
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "beq 1f" } } */
> +
> +signed int stzimm_le( int i, int a )
> +{
> +  signed int x;
> +  x = a;
> +  if (i>0)
> +x = 5;
> +  return x;
> +}
> +
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "ble 1f" } } */
> +
> +signed int stzimm_le_r( int i, int a )
> +{
> +  signed int x;
> +  x = a;
> +  if (i<0)
> +x = 5;
> +  return x;
> +}
> +
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "bge 1f" } } */

[PATCH] RX movsicc degrade fix

[Sebastian Perta]

Hello,

In recent versions of GCC the define_expand "movsicc" has stopped being used
by GCC (approx. 4.7.x/4.8.x onwards)
The reason for this is that the first operand of if_then_else has SI mode
and it shouldn't have. If we take a look at movsicc for all other targets we
see this is true.
The fix in rx.md is basically a copy paste from v850.md

The patch also adds a testcase in gcc.target/rx to make sure this degrade
does not occur again. 


Regression test is OK with one observation (see below), tested with the
following command:
make -k check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS=--target_board=rx-sim


I have the following fail (which was not present before):
FAIL: gcc.dg/loop-8.c scan-rtl-dump-times loop2_invariant "Decided" 1 (found
0 times)

This is because the patch is effective in this test case and the dump is not
the same, I checked the asm code manually and it is OK.
Is it possible to disable parts of a test case, not the whole test case (* {
dg-final { scan-rtl-dump-times "Decided" 1 "loop2_invariant" } } */  from
loop-8.c in this example) for a particular target?

The total numbers of failures remains the same because the following FAIL is
not present anymore with this patch:
FAIL: gcc.dg/ifcvt-4.c scan-rtl-dump ce1 "2 true changes made"


Please let me know if this is OK. Thank you!

Best Regards,
Sebastian


Index: ChangeLog
===
--- ChangeLog   (revision 256382)
+++ ChangeLog   (working copy)
@@ -1,3 +1,8 @@
+2018-01-09  Sebastian Perta  
+
+   *config/rx.md: updated "movsicc" expand to be matched by GCC
+   *testsuite/gcc.target/rx/movsicc.c: new test case
+
 2018-01-09  Richard Biener  
 
PR tree-optimization/83668
Index: config/rx/rx.md
===
--- config/rx/rx.md (revision 256382)
+++ config/rx/rx.md (working copy)
@@ -733,12 +733,17 @@
 (define_expand "movsicc"
   [(parallel
 [(set (match_operand:SI  0 "register_operand")
- (if_then_else:SI (match_operand:SI 1 "comparison_operator")
+ (if_then_else:SI (match_operand 1 "comparison_operator")
   (match_operand:SI 2 "nonmemory_operand")
   (match_operand:SI 3 "nonmemory_operand")))
  (clobber (reg:CC CC_REG))])]
   ""
 {
+  /* Make sure that we have an integer comparison...  */
+  if (GET_MODE (XEXP (operands[1], 0)) != CCmode
+  && GET_MODE (XEXP (operands[1], 0)) != SImode)
+FAIL;
+
   /* One operand must be a constant or a register, the other must be a
register.  */
   if (   ! CONSTANT_P (operands[2])
   && ! CONSTANT_P (operands[3])
Index: testsuite/gcc.target/rx/movsicc.c
===
--- testsuite/gcc.target/rx/movsicc.c   (nonexistent)
+++ testsuite/gcc.target/rx/movsicc.c   (working copy)
@@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-Os" } */
+
+typedef unsigned char u8;
+typedef unsigned short u16;
+signed int Xa, Xb;
+
+signed int stzreg_beq(int i, int a, int b)
+{
+  signed int x;
+  x = a;
+  if (i)
+x = b;
+  return x;
+}
+
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "bne 1f" } } */
+
+signed int stzreg_bge(int i, int a, int b, int c)
+{
+  signed int x;
+  x = a;
+  if (i0)
+x = b;
+  return x;
+}
+
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "bgt 1f" } } */
+
+signed int stzreg_blt(int i, int a, int b)
+{
+  signed int x;
+  x = a;
+  if (i<0)
+x = b;
+  return x;
+}
+
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "blt 1f" } } */
+
+signed int stzreg_bne(int i, int a, int b)
+{
+  signed int x;
+  x = a;
+  if (!i)
+x = b;
+  return x;
+}
+
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "beq 1f" } } */
+
+signed int stzimm_le( int i, int a )
+{
+  signed int x;
+  x = a;
+  if (i>0)
+x = 5;
+  return x;
+}
+
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "ble 1f" } } */
+
+signed int stzimm_le_r( int i, int a )
+{
+  signed int x;
+  x = a;
+  if (i<0)
+x = 5;
+  return x;
+}
+
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "bge 1f" } } */