Thanks Jeff and Richard for confirmation and comments.
It looks like firstly we should address the issue of the original commits in v4
and then
back to if there is something we need to deal with option no-signed-zero for
the riscv.
Pan
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Law <jeffreya...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2024 1:46 AM
To: Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com>; Li, Pan2 <pan2...@intel.com>
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai; Wang, Yanzhang
<yanzhang.w...@intel.com>; kito.ch...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] RISC-V: Bugfix for doesn't honor no-signed-zeros option
On 1/8/24 03:45, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 2:37 PM <pan2...@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> From: Pan Li <pan2...@intel.com>
>>
>> According to the sematics of no-signed-zeros option, the backend
>> like RISC-V should treat the minus zero -0.0f as plus zero 0.0f.
>>
>> Consider below example with option -fno-signed-zeros.
>>
>> void
>> test (float *a)
>> {
>> *a = -0.0;
>> }
>>
>> We will generate code as below, which doesn't treat the minus zero
>> as plus zero.
>>
>> test:
>> lui a5,%hi(.LC0)
>> flw fa5,%lo(.LC0)(a5)
>> fsw fa5,0(a0)
>> ret
>>
>> .LC0:
>> .word -2147483648 // aka -0.0 (0x80000000 in hex)
>>
>> This patch would like to fix the bug and treat the minus zero -0.0
>> as plus zero, aka +0.0. Thus after this patch we will have asm code
>> as below for the above sampe code.
>>
>> test:
>> sw zero,0(a0)
>> ret
>>
>> This patch also fix the run failure of the test case pr30957-1.c. The
>> below tests are passed for this patch.
>
> We don't really expect targets to do this. The small testcase above
> is somewhat ill-formed with -fno-signed-zeros. Note there's no
> -0.0 in pr30957-1.c so why does that one fail for you? Does
> the -fvariable-expansion-in-unroller code maybe not trigger for
> riscv?
Loop unrolling (and thus variable expansion) doesn't trigger on the VLA
style architectures. aarch64 passes becuase its backend knows it can
translate -0.0 into 0.0.
While we don't require that from ports, I'd just assume do the
optimization similar to aarch64 rather than xfail or skip the test on
RISC-V. We can load 0.0 more efficiently than -0.0.
>
> I think we should go to PR30957 and see what that was filed originally
> for, the testcase doesn't make much sense to me.
It's got more history than I'd like :(
jeff
