[Bug bootstrap/44470] [4.6 Regression] Failed to bootstrap with - -with-arch=atom

--- Comment #26 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2010-08-18 20:13 --- Splitting to LEA was fixed in r163351 [1] with patch at [2]. [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-08/msg00562.html [2] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-08/msg01394.html -- ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:

[Bug bootstrap/44470] [4.6 Regression] Failed to bootstrap with - -with-arch=atom

--- Comment #24 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-17 09:47 --- I think that's beginning to look reasonable. So the problem was that without alternative 2, such an add would match alternative 3 instead and be split? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44470

[Bug bootstrap/44470] [4.6 Regression] Failed to bootstrap with - -with-arch=atom

--- Comment #25 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-08-17 14:47 --- (In reply to comment #24) I think that's beginning to look reasonable. So the problem was that without alternative 2, such an add would match alternative 3 instead and be split? Yes. --

[Bug bootstrap/44470] [4.6 Regression] Failed to bootstrap with - -with-arch=atom

--- Comment #18 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-16 23:49 --- I'm seeing some strange situations where this code is unnecessarily producing lea insns even when not tuning for Atom. This code looks very strange. I don't understand why we aren't splitting to a lea pattern

[Bug bootstrap/44470] [4.6 Regression] Failed to bootstrap with - -with-arch=atom

--- Comment #19 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-16 23:51 --- Created an attachment (id=21497) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21497action=view) A patch which should produce more add insns In other words, don't we at least need this patch to avoid

[Bug bootstrap/44470] [4.6 Regression] Failed to bootstrap with - -with-arch=atom

--- Comment #20 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-08-17 00:10 --- (In reply to comment #18) I'm seeing some strange situations where this code is unnecessarily producing lea insns even when not tuning for Atom. This code looks very strange. I don't understand why we aren't

[Bug bootstrap/44470] [4.6 Regression] Failed to bootstrap with - -with-arch=atom

--- Comment #21 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-08-17 00:11 --- (In reply to comment #19) Created an attachment (id=21497) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21497action=view) [edit] A patch which should produce more add insns In other words, don't we at

[Bug bootstrap/44470] [4.6 Regression] Failed to bootstrap with - -with-arch=atom

--- Comment #22 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-17 00:16 --- I was looking at Spec2k/254.gap/integer.s which has many examples, all of the form. - leal(%ecx,%eax), %eax + addl%ecx, %eax -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44470

[Bug bootstrap/44470] [4.6 Regression] Failed to bootstrap with - -with-arch=atom

--- Comment #23 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-08-17 03:46 --- Created an attachment (id=21499) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21499action=view) A different patch We added the 2rd alternative to *addmode_1 for Atom so that we always use add instead lea.

[Bug bootstrap/44470] [4.6 Regression] Failed to bootstrap with - -with-arch=atom

--- Comment #10 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2010-06-10 06:18 --- (In reply to comment #9) Following patch is also needed to fix conditional splitting (it does not fix original uncovered problem where BLOCK_FOR_INSN returns null): I am not sure this is correct. The code prior

[Bug bootstrap/44470] [4.6 Regression] Failed to bootstrap with - -with-arch=atom

--- Comment #11 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-06-10 14:30 --- (In reply to comment #10) (In reply to comment #9) Following patch is also needed to fix conditional splitting (it does not fix original uncovered problem where BLOCK_FOR_INSN returns null): I am

[Bug bootstrap/44470] [4.6 Regression] Failed to bootstrap with - -with-arch=atom

--- Comment #12 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2010-06-10 14:57 --- (In reply to comment #11) I am not sure this is correct. The code prior to revision 160394 was written in such a way to support X86_TUNE_OPT_AGU. We may have missed some cases. But it is mostly correct. I'd

[Bug bootstrap/44470] [4.6 Regression] Failed to bootstrap with - -with-arch=atom

--- Comment #13 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2010-06-10 14:59 --- (In reply to comment #12) (In reply to comment #11) I am not sure this is correct. The code prior to revision 160394 was written in such a way to support X86_TUNE_OPT_AGU. We may have missed some cases.

[Bug bootstrap/44470] [4.6 Regression] Failed to bootstrap with - -with-arch=atom

--- Comment #14 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2010-06-10 15:12 --- (In reply to comment #11) ADD is always faster than LEA for adding a register. However there is a special case on Atom where ADD should be avoided. It is true that LEA doesn't touch flags and we used it instead of

[Bug bootstrap/44470] [4.6 Regression] Failed to bootstrap with - -with-arch=atom

--- Comment #15 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-06-10 15:43 --- (In reply to comment #14) (In reply to comment #11) ADD is always faster than LEA for adding a register. However there is a special case on Atom where ADD should be avoided. It is true that LEA doesn't

[Bug bootstrap/44470] [4.6 Regression] Failed to bootstrap with - -with-arch=atom

--- Comment #16 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-10 16:01 --- Subject: Bug 44470 Author: hjl Date: Thu Jun 10 16:00:31 2010 New Revision: 160557 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=160557 Log: Revert the part of r160394 to fix bootstap with --with-arch=atom.

[Bug bootstrap/44470] [4.6 Regression] Failed to bootstrap with - -with-arch=atom

--- Comment #17 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-06-10 19:16 --- Fixed. -- hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug bootstrap/44470] [4.6 Regression] Failed to bootstrap with - -with-arch=atom

--- Comment #4 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2010-06-09 06:27 --- (In reply to comment #1) It may be broken by revision 160394: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-06/msg00307.html The add-lea transformation doesn't even trigger in this testcase... You still have normal add

[Bug bootstrap/44470] [4.6 Regression] Failed to bootstrap with - -with-arch=atom

--- Comment #5 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2010-06-09 07:46 --- Looking into it. -- ubizjak at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned

[Bug bootstrap/44470] [4.6 Regression] Failed to bootstrap with - -with-arch=atom

-- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44470

[Bug bootstrap/44470] [4.6 Regression] Failed to bootstrap with - -with-arch=atom

--- Comment #6 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2010-06-09 12:15 --- Following patch is also needed to fix conditional splitting (it does not fix original uncovered problem where BLOCK_FOR_INSN returns null): Index: i386.md

[Bug bootstrap/44470] [4.6 Regression] Failed to bootstrap with - -with-arch=atom

--- Comment #7 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-06-09 14:13 --- (In reply to comment #4) (In reply to comment #1) It may be broken by revision 160394: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-06/msg00307.html The add-lea transformation doesn't even trigger in this

[Bug bootstrap/44470] [4.6 Regression] Failed to bootstrap with - -with-arch=atom

--- Comment #8 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-06-09 14:16 --- Whatever we do, we need to preserve Atom add-lea optimization. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44470

[Bug bootstrap/44470] [4.6 Regression] Failed to bootstrap with - -with-arch=atom

--- Comment #9 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-06-09 20:30 --- (In reply to comment #6) Following patch is also needed to fix conditional splitting (it does not fix original uncovered problem where BLOCK_FOR_INSN returns null): I am not sure this is correct. The code

[Bug bootstrap/44470] [4.6 Regression] Failed to bootstrap with - -with-arch=atom

-- hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0

[Bug bootstrap/44470] [4.6 Regression] Failed to bootstrap with - -with-arch=atom

--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-06-08 22:00 --- It may be broken by revision 160394: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-06/msg00307.html -- hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug bootstrap/44470] [4.6 Regression] Failed to bootstrap with - -with-arch=atom

--- Comment #2 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-06-09 00:52 --- (In reply to comment #1) It may be broken by revision 160394: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-06/msg00307.html This change moved (insn:TI 11 41 12 pr44470.i:15 (parallel [ (set (reg:SI 1 dx

[Bug bootstrap/44470] [4.6 Regression] Failed to bootstrap with - -with-arch=atom

--- Comment #3 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-06-09 00:59 --- The old scheduler: ;; == ;; -- basic block 2 from 37 to 42 -- after reload ;; == ;;0--37