commit: 02b9e1ebe9786a09cb4b00914d89d343241d6977 Author: Sam James <sam <AT> gentoo <DOT> org> AuthorDate: Wed Nov 22 12:06:38 2023 +0000 Commit: Sam James <sam <AT> gentoo <DOT> org> CommitDate: Wed Nov 22 12:07:48 2023 +0000 URL: https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=02b9e1eb
sys-devel/gcc/files: drop old patches Signed-off-by: Sam James <sam <AT> gentoo.org> .../gcc-14.0.0_pre20231015-pycryptodome-ice.patch | 212 --------------------- .../files/gcc-14.0.0_pre20231022-PR111860.patch | 129 ------------- 2 files changed, 341 deletions(-) diff --git a/sys-devel/gcc/files/gcc-14.0.0_pre20231015-pycryptodome-ice.patch b/sys-devel/gcc/files/gcc-14.0.0_pre20231015-pycryptodome-ice.patch deleted file mode 100644 index 377f68511f78..000000000000 --- a/sys-devel/gcc/files/gcc-14.0.0_pre20231015-pycryptodome-ice.patch +++ /dev/null @@ -1,212 +0,0 @@ -https://gcc.gnu.org/PR111845 -https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=f1744dd50bb1661c98b694ff907cb0a1be4f6134 - -From f1744dd50bb1661c98b694ff907cb0a1be4f6134 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 -From: Jakub Jelinek <[email protected]> -Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2023 12:37:40 +0200 -Subject: [PATCH] tree-ssa-math-opts: Fix up match_uaddc_usubc [PR111845] - -GCC ICEs on the first testcase. Successful match_uaddc_usubc ends up with -some dead stmts which DCE will remove (hopefully) later all. -The ICE is because one of the dead stmts refers to a freed SSA_NAME. -The code already gsi_removes a couple of stmts in the - /* Remove some statements which can't be kept in the IL because they - use SSA_NAME whose setter is going to be removed too. */ -section for the same reason (the reason for the freed SSA_NAMEs is that -we don't really have a replacement for those cases - all we have after -a match is combined overflow from the addition/subtraction of 2 operands + a -[0, 1] carry in, but not the individual overflows from the former 2 -additions), but for the last (most significant) limb case, where we try -to match x = op1 + op2 + carry1 + carry2; or -x = op1 - op2 - carry1 - carry2; we just gsi_replace the final stmt, but -left around the 2 temporary stmts as dead; if we were unlucky enough that -those referenced the carry flag that went away, it ICEs. - -So, the following patch remembers those temporary statements (rather than -trying to rediscover them more expensively) and removes them before the -final one is replaced. - -While working on it, I've noticed we didn't support all the reassociated -possibilities of writing the addition of 4 operands or subtracting 3 -operands from one, we supported e.g. -x = ((op1 + op2) + op3) + op4; -x = op1 + ((op2 + op3) + op4); -but not -x = (op1 + (op2 + op3)) + op4; -x = op1 + (op2 + (op3 + op4)); -Fixed by the change to inspect also rhs[2] when rhs[1] didn't yield what -we were searching for (if non-NULL) - rhs[0] is inspected in the first -loop and has different handling for the MINUS_EXPR case. - -2023-10-18 Jakub Jelinek <[email protected]> - - PR tree-optimization/111845 - * tree-ssa-math-opts.cc (match_uaddc_usubc): Remember temporary - statements for the 4 operand addition or subtraction of 3 operands - from 1 operand cases and remove them when successful. Look for - nested additions even from rhs[2], not just rhs[1]. - - * gcc.dg/pr111845.c: New test. - * gcc.target/i386/pr111845.c: New test. ---- - gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr111845.c | 16 ++++++++ - gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr111845.c | 47 +++++++++++++++++++++++ - gcc/tree-ssa-math-opts.cc | 48 +++++++++++++++--------- - 3 files changed, 94 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) - create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr111845.c - create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr111845.c - -diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr111845.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr111845.c -new file mode 100644 -index 000000000000..1bcb4f88e6f1 ---- /dev/null -+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr111845.c -@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@ -+/* PR tree-optimization/111845 */ -+/* { dg-do compile } */ -+/* { dg-options "-O2 --param tree-reassoc-width=2" } */ -+ -+int a, b; -+unsigned int c, d, e; -+ -+void -+foo (int x) -+{ -+ b += d; -+ c += b < d; -+ b += e = a < x; -+ c += b; -+ c += b < e; -+} -diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr111845.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr111845.c -new file mode 100644 -index 000000000000..d52110a40422 ---- /dev/null -+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr111845.c -@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@ -+/* PR tree-optimization/111845 */ -+/* { dg-do compile } */ -+/* { dg-options "-O2 -g -masm=att" } */ -+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "\tadcq\t" 8 { target lp64 } } } */ -+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "\tadcl\t" 8 { target ia32 } } } */ -+ -+unsigned long l, m; -+ -+__attribute__((noipa)) void -+foo (unsigned long x, unsigned long y, unsigned long h, unsigned long i, int a, int b) -+{ -+ unsigned long c, d; -+ unsigned long e = __builtin_add_overflow (x, y, &c); -+ unsigned long f = __builtin_add_overflow (c, a < b, &d); -+ m = ((h + i) + e) + f; -+ l = d; -+} -+ -+__attribute__((noipa)) void -+bar (unsigned long x, unsigned long y, unsigned long h, unsigned long i, int a, int b) -+{ -+ unsigned long c, d; -+ unsigned long e = __builtin_add_overflow (x, y, &c); -+ unsigned long f = __builtin_add_overflow (c, a < b, &d); -+ m = (h + (i + e)) + f; -+ l = d; -+} -+ -+__attribute__((noipa)) void -+baz (unsigned long x, unsigned long y, unsigned long h, unsigned long i, int a, int b) -+{ -+ unsigned long c, d; -+ unsigned long e = __builtin_add_overflow (x, y, &c); -+ unsigned long f = __builtin_add_overflow (c, a < b, &d); -+ m = h + (i + (e + f)); -+ l = d; -+} -+ -+__attribute__((noipa)) void -+qux (unsigned long x, unsigned long y, unsigned long h, unsigned long i, int a, int b) -+{ -+ unsigned long c, d; -+ unsigned long e = __builtin_add_overflow (x, y, &c); -+ unsigned long f = __builtin_add_overflow (c, a < b, &d); -+ m = h + ((i + e) + f); -+ l = d; -+} -diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-math-opts.cc b/gcc/tree-ssa-math-opts.cc -index 51c14d6bad9f..363f31646691 100644 ---- a/gcc/tree-ssa-math-opts.cc -+++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-math-opts.cc -@@ -4581,6 +4581,7 @@ match_uaddc_usubc (gimple_stmt_iterator *gsi, gimple *stmt, tree_code code) - if (!INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (type) || !TYPE_UNSIGNED (type)) - return false; - -+ auto_vec<gimple *, 2> temp_stmts; - if (code != BIT_IOR_EXPR && code != BIT_XOR_EXPR) - { - /* If overflow flag is ignored on the MSB limb, we can end up with -@@ -4615,26 +4616,29 @@ match_uaddc_usubc (gimple_stmt_iterator *gsi, gimple *stmt, tree_code code) - rhs[0] = gimple_assign_rhs1 (g); - tree &r = rhs[2] ? rhs[3] : rhs[2]; - r = r2; -+ temp_stmts.quick_push (g); - } - else - break; - } -- while (TREE_CODE (rhs[1]) == SSA_NAME && !rhs[3]) -- { -- gimple *g = SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT (rhs[1]); -- if (has_single_use (rhs[1]) -- && is_gimple_assign (g) -- && gimple_assign_rhs_code (g) == PLUS_EXPR) -- { -- rhs[1] = gimple_assign_rhs1 (g); -- if (rhs[2]) -- rhs[3] = gimple_assign_rhs2 (g); -- else -- rhs[2] = gimple_assign_rhs2 (g); -- } -- else -- break; -- } -+ for (int i = 1; i <= 2; ++i) -+ while (rhs[i] && TREE_CODE (rhs[i]) == SSA_NAME && !rhs[3]) -+ { -+ gimple *g = SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT (rhs[i]); -+ if (has_single_use (rhs[i]) -+ && is_gimple_assign (g) -+ && gimple_assign_rhs_code (g) == PLUS_EXPR) -+ { -+ rhs[i] = gimple_assign_rhs1 (g); -+ if (rhs[2]) -+ rhs[3] = gimple_assign_rhs2 (g); -+ else -+ rhs[2] = gimple_assign_rhs2 (g); -+ temp_stmts.quick_push (g); -+ } -+ else -+ break; -+ } - /* If there are just 3 addends or one minuend and two subtrahends, - check for UADDC or USUBC being pattern recognized earlier. - Say r = op1 + op2 + ovf1 + ovf2; where the (ovf1 + ovf2) part -@@ -5039,7 +5043,17 @@ match_uaddc_usubc (gimple_stmt_iterator *gsi, gimple *stmt, tree_code code) - g = gimple_build_assign (ilhs, IMAGPART_EXPR, - build1 (IMAGPART_EXPR, TREE_TYPE (ilhs), nlhs)); - if (rhs[2]) -- gsi_insert_before (gsi, g, GSI_SAME_STMT); -+ { -+ gsi_insert_before (gsi, g, GSI_SAME_STMT); -+ /* Remove some further statements which can't be kept in the IL because -+ they can use SSA_NAMEs whose setter is going to be removed too. */ -+ while (temp_stmts.length ()) -+ { -+ g = temp_stmts.pop (); -+ gsi2 = gsi_for_stmt (g); -+ gsi_remove (&gsi2, true); -+ } -+ } - else - gsi_replace (gsi, g, true); - /* Remove some statements which can't be kept in the IL because they --- -2.39.3 diff --git a/sys-devel/gcc/files/gcc-14.0.0_pre20231022-PR111860.patch b/sys-devel/gcc/files/gcc-14.0.0_pre20231022-PR111860.patch deleted file mode 100644 index 42deb046d0f3..000000000000 --- a/sys-devel/gcc/files/gcc-14.0.0_pre20231022-PR111860.patch +++ /dev/null @@ -1,129 +0,0 @@ -https://gcc.gnu.org/PR111860 -https://gcc.gnu.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=gcc.git;h=9ed6b22eb4188c57bb3f5cdba5a7effa95395186 - -From 9ed6b22eb4188c57bb3f5cdba5a7effa95395186 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 -From: Tamar Christina <[email protected]> -Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2023 14:07:20 +0100 -Subject: [PATCH] middle-end: don't keep .MEM guard nodes for PHI nodes who - dominate loop [PR111860] - -The previous patch tried to remove PHI nodes that dominated the first loop, -however the correct fix is to only remove .MEM nodes. - -This patch thus makes the condition a bit stricter and only tries to remove -MEM phi nodes. - -I couldn't figure out a way to easily determine if a particular PHI is vUSE -related, so the patch does: - -1. check if the definition is a vDEF and not defined in main loop. -2. check if the definition is a PHI and not defined in main loop. -3. check if the definition is a default definition. - -For no 2 and 3 we may misidentify the PHI, in both cases the value is defined -outside of the loop version block which also makes it ok to remove. - -gcc/ChangeLog: - - PR tree-optimization/111860 - * tree-vect-loop-manip.cc (slpeel_tree_duplicate_loop_to_edge_cfg): - Drop .MEM nodes only. - -gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: - - PR tree-optimization/111860 - * gcc.dg/vect/pr111860-2.c: New test. - * gcc.dg/vect/pr111860-3.c: New test. ---- - gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr111860-2.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++ - gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr111860-3.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++ - gcc/tree-vect-loop-manip.cc | 21 ++++++++++++++++++++- - 3 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) - create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr111860-2.c - create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr111860-3.c - -diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr111860-2.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr111860-2.c -new file mode 100644 -index 000000000000..07f64ffb5318 ---- /dev/null -+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr111860-2.c -@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ -+/* { dg-do compile } */ -+/* { dg-options "-O -fno-tree-sink -ftree-vectorize" } */ -+int buffer_ctrl_ctx_0, buffer_ctrl_p1, buffer_ctrl_cmd; -+ -+int -+buffer_ctrl (long ret, int i) -+{ -+ switch (buffer_ctrl_cmd) -+ { -+ case 1: -+ buffer_ctrl_ctx_0 = 0; -+ for (; i; i++) -+ if (buffer_ctrl_p1) -+ ret++; -+ } -+ return ret; -+} -diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr111860-3.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr111860-3.c -new file mode 100644 -index 000000000000..07f64ffb5318 ---- /dev/null -+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr111860-3.c -@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ -+/* { dg-do compile } */ -+/* { dg-options "-O -fno-tree-sink -ftree-vectorize" } */ -+int buffer_ctrl_ctx_0, buffer_ctrl_p1, buffer_ctrl_cmd; -+ -+int -+buffer_ctrl (long ret, int i) -+{ -+ switch (buffer_ctrl_cmd) -+ { -+ case 1: -+ buffer_ctrl_ctx_0 = 0; -+ for (; i; i++) -+ if (buffer_ctrl_p1) -+ ret++; -+ } -+ return ret; -+} -diff --git a/gcc/tree-vect-loop-manip.cc b/gcc/tree-vect-loop-manip.cc -index d67c94700144..43ca985c53ce 100644 ---- a/gcc/tree-vect-loop-manip.cc -+++ b/gcc/tree-vect-loop-manip.cc -@@ -1626,12 +1626,31 @@ slpeel_tree_duplicate_loop_to_edge_cfg (class loop *loop, edge loop_exit, - edge temp_e = redirect_edge_and_branch (exit, new_preheader); - flush_pending_stmts (temp_e); - } -- - /* Record the new SSA names in the cache so that we can skip materializing - them again when we fill in the rest of the LCSSA variables. */ - for (auto phi : new_phis) - { - tree new_arg = gimple_phi_arg (phi, 0)->def; -+ -+ if (!SSA_VAR_P (new_arg)) -+ continue; -+ /* If the PHI MEM node dominates the loop then we shouldn't create -+ a new LC-SSSA PHI for it in the intermediate block. */ -+ /* A MEM phi that consitutes a new DEF for the vUSE chain can either -+ be a .VDEF or a PHI that operates on MEM. And said definition -+ must not be inside the main loop. Or we must be a parameter. -+ In the last two cases we may remove a non-MEM PHI node, but since -+ they dominate both loops the removal is unlikely to cause trouble -+ as the exits must already be using them. */ -+ if (virtual_operand_p (new_arg) -+ && (SSA_NAME_IS_DEFAULT_DEF (new_arg) -+ || !flow_bb_inside_loop_p (loop, -+ gimple_bb (SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT (new_arg))))) -+ { -+ auto gsi = gsi_for_stmt (phi); -+ remove_phi_node (&gsi, true); -+ continue; -+ } - new_phi_args.put (new_arg, gimple_phi_result (phi)); - - if (TREE_CODE (new_arg) != SSA_NAME) --- -2.39.3
