> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de>
> Sent: 02 February 2021 10:08
> To: Przemyslaw Wirkus <przemyslaw.wir...@arm.com>
> Cc: Vladimir Makarov <vmaka...@redhat.com>; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org;
> ja...@redhat.com; ni...@redhat.com; Richard Earnshaw
> <richard.earns...@arm.com>; Ramana Radhakrishnan
> <ramana.radhakrish...@arm.com>; Kyrylo Tkachov
> <kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com>
> Subject: RE: [backport gcc10, gcc9] Requet to backport PR97969
>
> On Tue, 2 Feb 2021, Przemyslaw Wirkus wrote:
>
> > > On 2021-01-18 7:50 a.m., Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 18 Jan 2021, Przemyslaw Wirkus wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi all,
> > > >>
> > > >> Can we backport PR97969 patch to GCC 10 and (maybe) GCC 9 ?:
> > > >> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97969
> > > >>
> > > >> IMHO bug is severe and could land in GCC 10 and 9. Vladimir's
> > > >> original
> > > patch:
> > > >> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-January/563322.htm
> > > >> l applies without changes to both gcc-10 and gcc-9.
> > > >>
> > > >> I've regression tested this patch on both gcc-10 and gcc-9
> > > >> branched for
> > > >> x86_64 cross (arm-eabi target) and no issues.
> > > >>
> > > >> OK for gcc-10 and gcc-9 ?
> > > > I see two fallout PRs with a trivial search: PR98643 and PR98722.
> > > > LRA patches quite easily trigger unexpected fallout unfortunately ...
> > > >
> > > Yes, I am agree. We should wait until the new regressions are
> > > fixed. I am going to work on this patch more to fix the new
> > > regressions.� Although the basic idea of the original problem solution
> probably will stay the same.
> >
> > I've retested series of three patches which are related to this PR:
> >
> > 19af25c0b3aa2a78b4d45d295359ec26cb9fc607 [PR98777]
> > 79c57603602c4493b6baa1d47ed451e8f5e9c0f3 [PR98722]
> > 34aa56af2547e1646c0f07b9b88b210ebdb2a9f5 [PR97969]
> >
> > on top of gcc-10 branch.
> >
> > Bootstrapped and regression tested on aarch64-linux-gnu machine and no
> issues.
> > Regression tested on x86_64 host (arm-eabi target) cross and no issues.
> >
> > OK for gcc-10 ?
>
> I think this warrants waiting until at least the GCC 11 release.
Hi,
Just a follow up after GCC 11 release.
I've backported to gcc-10 branch (without any change to original patches)
PR97969 and following PR98722 & PR98777 patches.
Commits apply cleanly without changes.
Built and regression tested on:
* arm-none-eabi and
* aarch64-none-linux-gnu cross toolchains.
There were no issues and no regressions (all OK).
OK for backport to gcc-10 branch ?
Kind regards,
Przemyslaw Wirkus
---
commits I've backported:
commit cf2ac1c30af0fa783c8d72e527904dda5d8cc330
Author: Vladimir N. Makarov <vmaka...@redhat.com>
Date: Tue Jan 12 11:26:15 2021 -0500
[PR97969] LRA: Transform pattern `plus (plus (hard reg, const), pseudo)`
after elimination
commit 4334b524274203125193a08a8485250c41c2daa9
Author: Vladimir N. Makarov <vmaka...@redhat.com>
Date: Wed Jan 20 11:40:14 2021 -0500
[PR98722] LRA: Check that target has no 3-op add insn to transform 2 plus
expression.
commit 68ba1039c7daf0485b167fe199ed7e8031158091
Author: Vladimir N. Makarov <vmaka...@redhat.com>
Date: Thu Jan 21 17:27:01 2021 -0500
[PR98777] LRA: Use preliminary created pseudo for in LRA elimination subpass
$ ./contrib/git-backport.py cf2ac1c30af0fa783c8d72e527904dda5d8cc330
$ ./contrib/git-backport.py 4334b524274203125193a08a8485250c41c2daa9
$ ./contrib/git-backport.py 68ba1039c7daf0485b167fe199ed7e8031158091
> Richard.
