[Bug tree-optimization/109230] [13 Regression] Maybe wrong code for opus package on aarch64 since r13-4122-g1bc7efa948f751

2023-03-26 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109230 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug tree-optimization/109230] [13 Regression] Maybe wrong code for opus package on aarch64 since r13-4122-g1bc7efa948f751

2023-03-26 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109230 --- Comment #18 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:07fc3491260e6b5d261433c977a4e069f5ab40c1 commit r13-6866-g07fc3491260e6b5d261433c977a4e069f5ab40c1 Author: Jakub Jelinek Date:

[Bug tree-optimization/109230] [13 Regression] Maybe wrong code for opus package on aarch64 since r13-4122-g1bc7efa948f751

2023-03-21 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109230 --- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 54725 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54725=edit gcc13-pr109230.patch Full untested patch.

[Bug tree-optimization/109230] [13 Regression] Maybe wrong code for opus package on aarch64 since r13-4122-g1bc7efa948f751

2023-03-21 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109230 --- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek --- --- gcc/match.pd.jj 2023-02-18 12:38:30.967022708 +0100 +++ gcc/match.pd2023-03-21 17:24:54.964665797 +0100 @@ -8096,6 +8096,7 @@ and, scalar_mode inner_mode = GET_MODE_INNER

[Bug tree-optimization/109230] [13 Regression] Maybe wrong code for opus package on aarch64 since r13-4122-g1bc7efa948f751

2023-03-21 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109230 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2023-03-21

[Bug tree-optimization/109230] [13 Regression] Maybe wrong code for opus package on aarch64 since r13-4122-g1bc7efa948f751

2023-03-21 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109230 --- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek --- I think series_p clearly documents that: /* Return true if index OUT_BASE + I * OUT_STEP selects input element IN_BASE + I * IN_STEP. For example, the call to test whether a permute reverses a

[Bug tree-optimization/109230] [13 Regression] Maybe wrong code for opus package on aarch64 since r13-4122-g1bc7efa948f751

2023-03-21 Thread marxin at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109230 --- Comment #13 from Martin Liška --- Jakub, you are too fast! Anyway, nice test-case. So far I was able to come to something semi-reduced: typedef struct { float r; float i; } kiss_fft_cpx; kiss_fft_cpx *kf_bfly2_Fout,

[Bug tree-optimization/109230] [13 Regression] Maybe wrong code for opus package on aarch64 since r13-4122-g1bc7efa948f751

2023-03-21 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109230 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/109230] [13 Regression] Maybe wrong code for opus package on aarch64 since r13-4122-g1bc7efa948f751

2023-03-21 Thread tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109230 --- Comment #11 from Tamar Christina --- Neither of those vec_perms are valid targets for this optimization. It looks like sel.series_p is not doing what I expected. It's matching even elements and ignoring the odd ones.

[Bug tree-optimization/109230] [13 Regression] Maybe wrong code for opus package on aarch64 since r13-4122-g1bc7efa948f751

2023-03-21 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109230 --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek --- So are we talking about typedef float V __attribute__((vector_size (16))); typedef int VI __attribute__((vector_size (16))); V foo (V x, V y) { V a = x - y; V b = y + x; return __builtin_shuffle (b,

[Bug tree-optimization/109230] [13 Regression] Maybe wrong code for opus package on aarch64 since r13-4122-g1bc7efa948f751

2023-03-21 Thread avieira at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109230 --- Comment #9 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org --- Hmm I was seeing the change in opus_ifft but that does look like different codegen :/ I might not be looking at the right thing. That transformation looks definitely wrong though as the

[Bug tree-optimization/109230] [13 Regression] Maybe wrong code for opus package on aarch64 since r13-4122-g1bc7efa948f751

2023-03-21 Thread marxin at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109230 --- Comment #8 from Martin Liška --- Where I see the following change in optimized dump: float _423; float _424; float _425; + vector(4) float _442; + vector(2) double _443; void * _742; unsigned int _743; const struct

[Bug tree-optimization/109230] [13 Regression] Maybe wrong code for opus package on aarch64 since r13-4122-g1bc7efa948f751

2023-03-21 Thread marxin at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109230 --- Comment #7 from Martin Liška --- I've just isolated that to celt/kiss_fft.c, can you confirm the change comes from the file?

[Bug tree-optimization/109230] [13 Regression] Maybe wrong code for opus package on aarch64 since r13-4122-g1bc7efa948f751

2023-03-21 Thread avieira at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109230 --- Comment #6 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org --- Thanks! My initial investigation has lead me to think the change is being caused at vrp2, which is the only time the pattern gets triggered with -O2, the tree before the pass (at the place

[Bug tree-optimization/109230] [13 Regression] Maybe wrong code for opus package on aarch64 since r13-4122-g1bc7efa948f751

2023-03-21 Thread marxin at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109230 --- Comment #5 from Martin Liška --- Steps to reproduce: $ wget https://archive.mozilla.org/pub/opus/opus-1.3.1.tar.gz $ tar xvzf opus-1.3.1.tar.gz $ cd opus-1.3.1/ $ ./configure $ make -j32 && make -j32 check So it fails even with default

[Bug tree-optimization/109230] [13 Regression] Maybe wrong code for opus package on aarch64 since r13-4122-g1bc7efa948f751

2023-03-21 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109230 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/109230] [13 Regression] Maybe wrong code for opus package on aarch64 since r13-4122-g1bc7efa948f751

2023-03-21 Thread avieira at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109230 avieira at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||avieira at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug tree-optimization/109230] [13 Regression] Maybe wrong code for opus package on aarch64 since r13-4122-g1bc7efa948f751

2023-03-21 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109230 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |13.0

[Bug tree-optimization/109230] [13 Regression] Maybe wrong code for opus package on aarch64 since r13-4122-g1bc7efa948f751

2023-03-21 Thread marxin at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109230 --- Comment #2 from Martin Liška --- And the same happens for glm package: https://build.opensuse.org/package/live_build_log/openSUSE:Factory:ARM/glm/standard/aarch64 [ 95s] The following tests FAILED: [ 95s]168 -

[Bug tree-optimization/109230] [13 Regression] Maybe wrong code for opus package on aarch64 since r13-4122-g1bc7efa948f751

2023-03-21 Thread tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109230 --- Comment #1 from Tamar Christina --- That patch only fixed the bootstrap, in any case I'm on holidays so have asked someone else to look.