https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63783
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63783
--- Comment #18 from Michael Karcher gcc-bugzilla at mkarcher dot
dialup.fu-berlin.de ---
As I said, I did not try your patch, but just read the source. The assembly you
quoted convinces me that there is no problem in the code actually produced
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63783
--- Comment #19 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Michael Karcher from comment #18)
As I said, I did not try your patch, but just read the source. The assembly
you quoted convinces me that there is no problem in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63783
--- Comment #20 from Michael Karcher gcc-bugzilla at mkarcher dot
dialup.fu-berlin.de ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #19)
The or-then-SImode-compare optimization has an adverse effect on the test
coverage, it seems. In both cases,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63783
--- Comment #21 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Michael Karcher from comment #20)
Of course. The instructions involving src_reg in make_not_reg_insn dealing
with src_reg are completely quoted here:
+ // On SH we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63783
--- Comment #22 from Michael Karcher gcc-bugzilla at mkarcher dot
dialup.fu-berlin.de ---
OK, in that case I retract my objections and I think the patch is fine. I am
sorry for that mistake.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63783
--- Comment #23 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Sat Nov 22 15:50:10 2014
New Revision: 217969
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217969root=gccview=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/63783
PR target/51244
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63783
--- Comment #24 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Sat Nov 22 16:07:25 2014
New Revision: 217970
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217970root=gccview=rev
Log:
gcc/
Backport from mainline
2014-11-22
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63783
--- Comment #15 from Michael Karcher gcc-bugzilla at mkarcher dot
dialup.fu-berlin.de ---
I did not get around to test your proposed patch yet, but it seems like the new
logical not operation always compares only the low 32 bit against zero,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63783
Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #34062|0 |1
is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63783
--- Comment #17 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Michael Karcher from comment #15)
I did not get around to test your proposed patch yet, but it seems like the
new logical not operation always compares only the low 32
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63783
--- Comment #14 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 34062
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34062action=edit
Proposed patch
I'm now testing the attached patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63783
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63783
--- Comment #6 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Michael Karcher from comment #5)
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #4)
I'm not sure about this. The first hunk of your patch that removes the
example in the top
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63783
--- Comment #7 from Michael Karcher gcc-bugzilla at mkarcher dot
dialup.fu-berlin.de ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #6)
For the transformation to be valid, you would need a logical not instruction
instead of the bitwise not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63783
--- Comment #8 from Michael Karcher gcc-bugzilla at mkarcher dot
dialup.fu-berlin.de ---
Actually, the whole issue got me curious - I will try prepare a different patch
along your suggestions and compare the compiler output. If I don't report
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63783
--- Comment #9 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Michael Karcher from comment #8)
Actually, the whole issue got me curious - I will try prepare a different
patch along your suggestions and compare the compiler output.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63783
--- Comment #10 from Michael Karcher gcc-bugzilla at mkarcher dot
dialup.fu-berlin.de ---
Created attachment 33991
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33991action=edit
Fix logical negation of registers, SImode only
In fact, it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63783
--- Comment #11 from Michael Karcher gcc-bugzilla at mkarcher dot
dialup.fu-berlin.de ---
Putting things straight after trying it out:
(In reply to Michael Karcher from comment #7)
[...]
and this gets (except SH2A with nott) transformed to (by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63783
--- Comment #12 from Michael Karcher gcc-bugzilla at mkarcher dot
dialup.fu-berlin.de ---
Further digging into this showed that there actually is a pass that would merge
the two tst r1,r1 instructions - the jump2 pass in cfgclenup.c.
The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63783
--- Comment #13 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Michael Karcher from comment #12)
Further digging into this showed that there actually is a pass that would
merge the two tst r1,r1 instructions - the jump2 pass in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63783
--- Comment #4 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Michael Karcher from comment #3)
Created attachment 33954 [details]
Remove assumption that not is logical negate
Indeed the treg combine pass is broken. Thanks to the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63783
--- Comment #5 from Michael Karcher gcc-bugzilla at mkarcher dot
dialup.fu-berlin.de ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #4)
I'm not sure about this. The first hunk of your patch that removes the
example in the top comment block should be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63783
Michael Karcher gcc-bugzilla at mkarcher dot dialup.fu-berlin.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63783
Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||sh*-*-*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63783
--- Comment #2 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thanks for tracing this down. Yes, it looks like a sh_treg_combine bug. I
will have a look at it, but probably only in 2 weeks from now.
26 matches
Mail list logo
