Re: [PATCH 7/7] Expand directly for single bit test
On Sun, May 21, 2023 at 11:25 AM Andrew Pinski wrote: > On Sun, May 21, 2023 at 11:17 AM David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches > wrote: > > > > Hi, Andrew > > > > Thanks for this series of patches to improve do_store_flag. > Unfortunately > > this specific patch in the series has caused a bootstrap failure on > > powerpc-aix. I bisected this failure to this specific patch. Note that I > > am building as 32 bit, so this could be a specific issue about bit size. > > > > * expr.cc (fold_single_bit_test): Rename to ... > > (expand_single_bit_test): This and expand directly. > > (do_store_flag): Update for the rename function. > > Did this include the fix I did for big-endian at > r14-1022-g7f3df8e65c71e5 ? I had found that I broke big-endian last > night with that patch and pushed the fix once I figured out what I did > wrong. > If you already tried post the fix, I will try to look into it as soon > as possible. > > The big-endian patch fixed the issue for Power also. Thanks, David
Re: [PATCH 7/7] Expand directly for single bit test
On 5/21/23 12:25, Andrew Pinski via Gcc-patches wrote: On Sun, May 21, 2023 at 11:17 AM David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches wrote: Hi, Andrew Thanks for this series of patches to improve do_store_flag. Unfortunately this specific patch in the series has caused a bootstrap failure on powerpc-aix. I bisected this failure to this specific patch. Note that I am building as 32 bit, so this could be a specific issue about bit size. * expr.cc (fold_single_bit_test): Rename to ... (expand_single_bit_test): This and expand directly. (do_store_flag): Update for the rename function. Did this include the fix I did for big-endian at r14-1022-g7f3df8e65c71e5 ? I had found that I broke big-endian last night with that patch and pushed the fix once I figured out what I did wrong. If you already tried post the fix, I will try to look into it as soon as possible. FWIW, the various failing hosts from yesterday in my tester have all returned to successful builds after the BE fixes. m32r, iq2000, moxie, sh3eb, h8300. There's a very reasonable chance the PPC bug is the same underlying issue. Jeff
Re: [PATCH 7/7] Expand directly for single bit test
On Sun, May 21, 2023 at 11:25 AM Andrew Pinski wrote: > > On Sun, May 21, 2023 at 11:17 AM David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches > wrote: > > > > Hi, Andrew > > > > Thanks for this series of patches to improve do_store_flag. Unfortunately > > this specific patch in the series has caused a bootstrap failure on > > powerpc-aix. I bisected this failure to this specific patch. Note that I > > am building as 32 bit, so this could be a specific issue about bit size. > > > > * expr.cc (fold_single_bit_test): Rename to ... > > (expand_single_bit_test): This and expand directly. > > (do_store_flag): Update for the rename function. > > Did this include the fix I did for big-endian at > r14-1022-g7f3df8e65c71e5 ? I had found that I broke big-endian last > night with that patch and pushed the fix once I figured out what I did > wrong. > If you already tried post the fix, I will try to look into it as soon > as possible. I just re-read my message and I think it might have been confusing. Last night I noticed the patch which you pointed out broke big-endian targets, I pushed r14-1022-g7f3df8e65c71e5 as the fix. I am wondering if your testing included this fix. If yes then I will try to figure out the best way of figuring out how I broke this target too. Thanks, Andrew > > Thanks, > Andrew > > > > > > > Thanks, David
Re: [PATCH 7/7] Expand directly for single bit test
On Sun, May 21, 2023 at 11:17 AM David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches wrote: > > Hi, Andrew > > Thanks for this series of patches to improve do_store_flag. Unfortunately > this specific patch in the series has caused a bootstrap failure on > powerpc-aix. I bisected this failure to this specific patch. Note that I > am building as 32 bit, so this could be a specific issue about bit size. > > * expr.cc (fold_single_bit_test): Rename to ... > (expand_single_bit_test): This and expand directly. > (do_store_flag): Update for the rename function. Did this include the fix I did for big-endian at r14-1022-g7f3df8e65c71e5 ? I had found that I broke big-endian last night with that patch and pushed the fix once I figured out what I did wrong. If you already tried post the fix, I will try to look into it as soon as possible. Thanks, Andrew > > > Thanks, David
Re: [PATCH 7/7] Expand directly for single bit test
Hi, Andrew Thanks for this series of patches to improve do_store_flag. Unfortunately this specific patch in the series has caused a bootstrap failure on powerpc-aix. I bisected this failure to this specific patch. Note that I am building as 32 bit, so this could be a specific issue about bit size. * expr.cc (fold_single_bit_test): Rename to ... (expand_single_bit_test): This and expand directly. (do_store_flag): Update for the rename function. Thanks, David
Re: [PATCH 7/7] Expand directly for single bit test
On 5/19/23 20:14, Andrew Pinski via Gcc-patches wrote: Instead of using creating trees to the expansion, just expand directly which makes the code a little simplier but also reduces how much GC memory will be used during the expansion. OK? Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-linux. gcc/ChangeLog: * expr.cc (fold_single_bit_test): Rename to ... (expand_single_bit_test): This and expand directly. (do_store_flag): Update for the rename function. OK. jeff
[PATCH 7/7] Expand directly for single bit test
Instead of using creating trees to the expansion, just expand directly which makes the code a little simplier but also reduces how much GC memory will be used during the expansion. OK? Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-linux. gcc/ChangeLog: * expr.cc (fold_single_bit_test): Rename to ... (expand_single_bit_test): This and expand directly. (do_store_flag): Update for the rename function. --- gcc/expr.cc | 63 - 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-) diff --git a/gcc/expr.cc b/gcc/expr.cc index d04e8ed0204..6849c9627d0 100644 --- a/gcc/expr.cc +++ b/gcc/expr.cc @@ -12899,15 +12899,14 @@ maybe_optimize_sub_cmp_0 (enum tree_code code, tree *arg0, tree *arg1) } -/* If CODE with arguments INNER & (1<
