[Bug target/115713] rs6000: Miss warning for incompatible no-altivec and vsx in target attribute
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115713 Kewen Lin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #10 from Kewen Lin --- Should be fixed on trunk.
[Bug target/115713] rs6000: Miss warning for incompatible no-altivec and vsx in target attribute
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115713 --- Comment #8 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Kewen Lin : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e6db8848d956f5e712dd621d33630b799ff60a72 commit r15-2215-ge6db8848d956f5e712dd621d33630b799ff60a72 Author: Kewen Lin Date: Tue Jul 23 00:48:00 2024 -0500 rs6000: Consider explicitly set options in target option parsing [PR115713] In rs6000_inner_target_options, when enabling VSX we enable altivec and disable -mavoid-indexed-addresses implicitly, but it doesn't consider the case that the options altivec and avoid-indexed-addresses can be explicitly disabled. As the test case in PR115713#c1 shows, with target attribute "no-altivec,vsx", it results in that VSX unexpectedly set altivec flag and there isn't an expected error. This patch is to avoid the automatic enablement when they are explicitly specified. With this change, an existing test case ppc-target-4.c also requires an adjustment by specifying explicit altivec in target attribute (since it requires altivec feature and command line is specifying no-altivec). PR target/115713 gcc/ChangeLog: * config/rs6000/rs6000.cc (rs6000_inner_target_options): Avoid to enable altivec or disable avoid-indexed-addresses automatically when they get specified explicitly. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: * gcc.target/powerpc/pr115713-1.c: New test. * gcc.target/powerpc/ppc-target-4.c: Adjust by specifying altivec in target attribute.
[Bug target/115713] rs6000: Miss warning for incompatible no-altivec and vsx in target attribute
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115713 --- Comment #9 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Kewen Lin : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f4062e3615a32597afdb6c8066c87f680276 commit r15-2216-gf4062e3615a32597afdb6c8066c87f680276 Author: Kewen Lin Date: Tue Jul 23 00:48:14 2024 -0500 rs6000: Update option set in rs6000_inner_target_options [PR115713] When function rs6000_inner_target_options parsing target options, it updates the explicit option set information for rs6000_opt_masks by rs6000_isa_flags_explicit, but it misses to update that information for rs6000_opt_vars, and it can result in some unexpected consequence as the associated test case shows. This patch is to fix rs6000_inner_target_options to update the option set for rs6000_opt_vars as well. PR target/115713 gcc/ChangeLog: * config/rs6000/rs6000.cc (rs6000_inner_target_options): Update option set information for rs6000_opt_vars. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: * gcc.target/powerpc/pr115713-2.c: New test.
[Bug target/115713] rs6000: Miss warning for incompatible no-altivec and vsx in target attribute
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115713 --- Comment #7 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Kewen Lin : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:04da747a063850333b062e48d0531debe314dff9 commit r15-2214-g04da747a063850333b062e48d0531debe314dff9 Author: Kewen Lin Date: Tue Jul 23 00:47:49 2024 -0500 rs6000: Escalate warning to error for VSX with explicit no-altivec etc. As the discussion in PR115688, for now when users specify -mvsx and -mno-altivec explicitly, compiler emits warning rather than error, but considering both options are given explicitly, emitting hard error should be better. So this patch is to escalate some related warning to error when both are incompatible. PR target/115713 gcc/ChangeLog: * config/rs6000/rs6000.cc (rs6000_option_override_internal): Emit error messages when explicit VSX encounters explicit soft-float, no-altivec or avoid-indexed-addresses. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: * gcc.target/powerpc/warn-1.c: Move to ... * gcc.target/powerpc/error-1.c: ... here. Adjust dg-warning with dg-error and remove ineffective scan.
[Bug target/115713] rs6000: Miss warning for incompatible no-altivec and vsx in target attribute
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115713
--- Comment #6 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> The docs are at least imprecise. Surely command-line -maltivec with
> target ("no-vsx") shouldn't revert to whatever is default with the target
> opts.
Thanks for confirming, I'll update the affected test case.
[Bug target/115713] rs6000: Miss warning for incompatible no-altivec and vsx in target attribute
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115713
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
The docs are at least imprecise. Surely command-line -maltivec with
target ("no-vsx") shouldn't revert to whatever is default with the target opts.
[Bug target/115713] rs6000: Miss warning for incompatible no-altivec and vsx in target attribute
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115713
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org,
||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Kewen Lin ---
> diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc
> index 76bbb3a28ea..4638c34cc24 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc
> +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc
> @@ -24638,8 +24638,11 @@ rs6000_inner_target_options (tree args, bool attr_p)
>{
> if (mask == OPTION_MASK_VSX)
>{
> -mask |= OPTION_MASK_ALTIVEC;
> -TARGET_AVOID_XFORM = 0;
> +if (!(rs6000_isa_flags_explicit
> + & OPTION_MASK_ALTIVEC))
> + mask |= OPTION_MASK_ALTIVEC;
> +if (!OPTION_SET_P (TARGET_AVOID_XFORM))
> + TARGET_AVOID_XFORM = 0;
>}
>}
Testing this patch and found one regression failure:
gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/ppc-target-4.c
It fails due to that the command line (dg-options) specifies -mno-altivec
/* { dg-options "-O2 -ffast-math -mdejagnu-cpu=power5 -mno-altivec
-mabi=altivec -fno-unroll-loops" } */
meanwhile #pragma target just specifies "vsx"
#pragma GCC target("vsx")
#include
w/o this patch, "vsx" would enable altivec implicitly no matter that command
line option specifying -mno-altivec, while w/ this patch "vsx" won't enable
altivec any more. It's like the case in #c0, the difference is -mno-altivec is
from command line or target attribute itself. It can be fixed by explicitly
specifying "-maltivec" in target attribute.
But by checking the manual, I noticed the documentation on target attribute
says "The original target command-line options are ignored.", I think it
contradicts with what we implemented for target attribute parsing now? It seems
the other targets don't conform with this very well, target_option_default_node
has considered all command line options? I wonder if the documentation is
intentional to define like this.
[Bug target/115713] rs6000: Miss warning for incompatible no-altivec and vsx in target attribute
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115713
--- Comment #3 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #2)
> (In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #0)
> > As Peter found in the PR115688, there isn't a warning for:
> >
> > long __attribute__ ((target ("no-altivec,vsx")))
> > foo (void)
> > {
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > It's expected to see warning like:
> >
> > warning: ‘-mvsx’ and ‘-mno-altivec’ are incompatible
>
> I think Segher and I mentioned in the other bug, that conflicting options
> like this should be an error, rather than a warning.
ah, thanks for noting this, sorry that I missed that part. I agree that error
sounds better as both are explicitly specified. I thought the reason why it's a
warning is that the whole processing hunk is for warning:
/* Add some warnings for VSX. */
if (TARGET_VSX)
{
const char *msg = NULL;
if (!TARGET_HARD_FLOAT)
{
if (rs6000_isa_flags_explicit & OPTION_MASK_VSX)
msg = N_("%<-mvsx%> requires hardware floating point");
else
{
rs6000_isa_flags &= ~ OPTION_MASK_VSX;
rs6000_isa_flags_explicit |= OPTION_MASK_VSX;
}
}
else if (TARGET_AVOID_XFORM > 0)
msg = N_("%<-mvsx%> needs indexed addressing");
else if (!TARGET_ALTIVEC && (rs6000_isa_flags_explicit
& OPTION_MASK_ALTIVEC))
{
if (rs6000_isa_flags_explicit & OPTION_MASK_VSX)
msg = N_("%<-mvsx%> and %<-mno-altivec%> are incompatible");
else
msg = N_("%<-mno-altivec%> disables vsx");
}
if (msg)
{
warning (0, msg);
rs6000_isa_flags &= ~ OPTION_MASK_VSX;
rs6000_isa_flags_explicit |= OPTION_MASK_VSX;
}
}
I think we still would like to leave the others as warning, then I'll add one
flag specific in explicit vsx and altivec arm for error.
[Bug target/115713] rs6000: Miss warning for incompatible no-altivec and vsx in target attribute
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115713
--- Comment #2 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #0)
> As Peter found in the PR115688, there isn't a warning for:
>
> long __attribute__ ((target ("no-altivec,vsx")))
> foo (void)
> {
> return 0;
> }
>
> It's expected to see warning like:
>
> warning: ‘-mvsx’ and ‘-mno-altivec’ are incompatible
I think Segher and I mentioned in the other bug, that conflicting options like
this should be an error, rather than a warning.
[Bug target/115713] rs6000: Miss warning for incompatible no-altivec and vsx in target attribute
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115713
--- Comment #1 from Kewen Lin ---
There IS a warning for:
long __attribute__ ((target ("vsx,no-altivec")))
foo1 (void)
{
return 0;
}
, interesting. :)
It's due to that we enable altivec when parsing vsx in target attribute, but
don't consider if it's explicit set, so the fix can be:
diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc
index 76bbb3a28ea..4638c34cc24 100644
--- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc
+++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc
@@ -24638,8 +24638,11 @@ rs6000_inner_target_options (tree args, bool attr_p)
{
if (mask == OPTION_MASK_VSX)
{
-mask |= OPTION_MASK_ALTIVEC;
-TARGET_AVOID_XFORM = 0;
+if (!(rs6000_isa_flags_explicit
+ & OPTION_MASK_ALTIVEC))
+ mask |= OPTION_MASK_ALTIVEC;
+if (!OPTION_SET_P (TARGET_AVOID_XFORM))
+ TARGET_AVOID_XFORM = 0;
}
}
[Bug target/115713] rs6000: Miss warning for incompatible no-altivec and vsx in target attribute
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115713 Kewen Lin changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2024-06-30 Target||powerpc* Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Target Milestone|--- |15.0 Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |linkw at gcc dot gnu.org CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org, ||meissner at gcc dot gnu.org, ||segher at gcc dot gnu.org Ever confirmed|0 |1 Keywords||diagnostic
