[Bug rtl-optimization/118615] [15 Regression] Bootstrap failure on aarch64 after r15-2810

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118615 --- Comment #32 from Surya Kumari Jangala --- Yes, it is right that for call insn, first_call_insn is same as curr_insn and hence before_p is honoured. And for jmp insn, it is ok to move the save insn after the jmp. My bad that I missed these nu

[Bug rtl-optimization/118615] [15 Regression] Bootstrap failure on aarch64 after r15-2810

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118615 --- Comment #30 from Surya Kumari Jangala --- Going thru the 2 patches (r15-2810 and r15-8656), I realized that before_p should be honoured. The significance of before_p : For jmp/call insns which have a hard reg as a src register, the split/in

[Bug rtl-optimization/116028] [15 Regression] gcc.dg/pr10474.c test failure since r15-1619-g3b9b8d6cfdf593

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116028 --- Comment #14 from Surya Kumari Jangala --- (In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #13) > (In reply to Surya Kumari Jangala from comment #3) > > The parameter register is > > saved in a volatile register which is saved on stack in the entr

[Bug target/118533] [15 regression] bfloat16_scalar_*.c failures since r15-1619-g3b9b8d6cfdf593

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118533 Surya Kumari Jangala changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNE

[Bug rtl-optimization/118615] [15 Regression] Bootstrap failure on aarch64 after r15-2810

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118615 --- Comment #13 from Surya Kumari Jangala --- Created attachment 60251 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60251&action=edit r15-2810 plus fix for xstormy16-elf issue Hello Andrew, Just wanted to let you know that I made a sma

[Bug target/118533] New: [15 regression] bfloat16_scalar_*.c failures since r15-1619-g3b9b8d6cfdf593

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118533 Bug ID: 118533 Summary: [15 regression] bfloat16_scalar_*.c failures since r15-1619-g3b9b8d6cfdf593 Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: no

[Bug rtl-optimization/110254] improve_allocation() routine does not update allocated_hardreg_p[] array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110254 Surya Kumari Jangala changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|UNCONFI

[Bug target/96017] Powerpc suboptimal register spill in likely path

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96017 Surya Kumari Jangala changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug rtl-optimization/111673] assign_hard_reg() routine should scale save/restore costs of callee save registers with basic block frequency

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111673 Surya Kumari Jangala changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNE

[Bug rtl-optimization/116028] [15 regression] gcc.dg/pr10474.c test failure since r15-1619-g3b9b8d6cfdf593

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116028 Surya Kumari Jangala changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNE

[Bug rtl-optimization/116028] [15 regression] gcc.dg/pr10474.c test failure since r15-1619-g3b9b8d6cfdf593

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116028 --- Comment #7 from Surya Kumari Jangala --- I have posted a patch for the fix.

[Bug rtl-optimization/116028] [15 regression] gcc.dg/pr10474.c test failure since r15-1619-g3b9b8d6cfdf593

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116028 --- Comment #6 from Surya Kumari Jangala --- The test gcc.dg/ira-shrinkwrap-prep-1.c has been marked as an XFAIL on powerpc. The test fails as shrink wrapping does not happen as expected. The reason that the shrink wrapping doesn't happen is the

[Bug rtl-optimization/116028] [15 regression] gcc.dg/pr10474.c test failure since r15-1619-g3b9b8d6cfdf593

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116028 --- Comment #4 from Surya Kumari Jangala --- (In reply to Sam James from comment #1) > Yeah, I mentioned it when filing PR115673, but I wasn't sure if they were > all the same cause so didn't want to file a bunch without knowing. I am not able

[Bug rtl-optimization/116028] [15 regression] gcc.dg/pr10474.c test failure since r15-1619-g3b9b8d6cfdf593

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116028 Surya Kumari Jangala changed: What|Removed |Added Target|aarch64-*-* |aarch64-*-* powerpc*-*-* --- Com

[Bug rtl-optimization/116028] [15 regression] gcc.dg/pr10474.c test failure since r15-1619-g3b9b8d6cfdf593

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116028 Surya Kumari Jangala changed: What|Removed |Added Target||aarch64-*-* --- Comment #2 from

[Bug rtl-optimization/116028] [15 regression] gcc.dg/pr10474.c test failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116028 Surya Kumari Jangala changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2024-07-22 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug rtl-optimization/116028] New: [15 regression] gcc.dg/pr10474.c test failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116028 Bug ID: 116028 Summary: [15 regression] gcc.dg/pr10474.c test failure Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: rt

[Bug testsuite/115894] [15 regression] gcc.target/arm/pr111235.c test failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115894 Surya Kumari Jangala changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNE

[Bug testsuite/115892] [15 regression] gcc.target/aarch64/sve/acle/general/cpy_1.c test failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115892 Surya Kumari Jangala changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNE

[Bug rtl-optimization/115894] [15 regression] gcc.target/arm/pr111235.c test failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115894 Surya Kumari Jangala changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |15.0 CC|

[Bug rtl-optimization/115894] [15 regression] gcc.target/arm/pr111235.c test failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115894 Surya Kumari Jangala changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug rtl-optimization/115894] New: [15 regression] gcc.target/arm/pr111235.c test failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115894 Bug ID: 115894 Summary: [15 regression] gcc.target/arm/pr111235.c test failure Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Comp

[Bug rtl-optimization/115892] [15 regression] gcc.target/aarch64/sve/acle/general/cpy_1.c test failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115892 Surya Kumari Jangala changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug rtl-optimization/115892] New: [15 regression] gcc.target/aarch64/sve/acle/general/cpy_1.c test failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115892 Bug ID: 115892 Summary: [15 regression] gcc.target/aarch64/sve/acle/general/cpy_1.c test failure Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/114004] GCC emits a superfluous instruction for simple test case on ppc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114004 Surya Kumari Jangala changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug rtl-optimization/110071] improve_allocation() routine should consider save/restore cost of callee-save registers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110071 Surya Kumari Jangala changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/110071] improve_allocation() routine should consider save/restore cost of callee-save registers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110071 Surya Kumari Jangala changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2024-02-01 Status|UN

[Bug target/96017] Powerpc suboptimal register spill in likely path

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96017 --- Comment #14 from Surya Kumari Jangala --- Instead of using a non-volatile register to hold the value of foo, a volatile register (r9) is assigned to hold foo. This avoids setting up the stack frame in the fast path.

[Bug target/96017] Powerpc suboptimal register spill in likely path

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96017 --- Comment #13 from Surya Kumari Jangala --- With the patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-October/631849.html, the testcase gets shrink wrapped. This is the assembly produced: addis 2,12,.TOC.-.LCF0@ha addi 2

[Bug rtl-optimization/111673] New: assign_hard_reg() routine should scale save/restore costs of callee save registers with basic block frequency

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111673 Bug ID: 111673 Summary: assign_hard_reg() routine should scale save/restore costs of callee save registers with basic block frequency Product: gcc Version: unkno

[Bug target/103784] suboptimal code for returning bool value on target ppc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103784 --- Comment #15 from Surya Kumari Jangala --- This is another test which has unnecessary zero extension: #include bool glob1; bool glob2; bool foo (int a, bool d) { bool c; if (a > 2) c = glob1 & glob2; else c = glob1 | glob2;

[Bug rtl-optimization/109009] Shrink Wrap missed opportunity

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109009 --- Comment #12 from Surya Kumari Jangala --- (In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #10) > (In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #9) > > Yes, you'll need to factor in the BB frequency. Since the save/restore code > > will go into (at this p

[Bug rtl-optimization/109009] Shrink Wrap missed opportunity

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109009 --- Comment #11 from Surya Kumari Jangala --- (In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #9) > (In reply to Surya Kumari Jangala from comment #8) > > However, while computing the save/restore cost, we are considering only the > > memory move cost b

[Bug rtl-optimization/109009] Shrink Wrap missed opportunity

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109009 --- Comment #8 from Surya Kumari Jangala --- (In reply to Surya Kumari Jangala from comment #7) > There are a couple of issues in IRA: > > 1. In improve_allocation() routine, we are not considering save/restore cost > of using a callee save reg

[Bug rtl-optimization/110254] New: improve_allocation() routine does not update allocated_hardreg_p[] array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110254 Bug ID: 110254 Summary: improve_allocation() routine does not update allocated_hardreg_p[] array Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: no

[Bug rtl-optimization/110071] New: improve_allocation() routine should consider save/restore cost of callee-save registers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110071 Bug ID: 110071 Summary: improve_allocation() routine should consider save/restore cost of callee-save registers Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug rtl-optimization/109009] Shrink Wrap missed opportunity

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109009 --- Comment #7 from Surya Kumari Jangala --- There are a couple of issues in IRA: 1. In improve_allocation() routine, we are not considering save/restore cost of using a callee save register (r31 in the failing case). Due to this, r31 is being

[Bug rtl-optimization/109009] Shrink Wrap missed opportunity

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109009 --- Comment #6 from Surya Kumari Jangala --- Continuing with the analysis of the test cases specified in comment 5, here are some findings: After graph colouring, when we do improve_allocation(), we find that in the failing test case, the hard_

[Bug rtl-optimization/109009] Shrink Wrap missed opportunity

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109009 --- Comment #5 from Surya Kumari Jangala --- I was analysing and comparing the following test cases: Test1 (shrink wrapped) long foo (long i, long cond) { i = i + 1; if (cond) bar (); return i; } Test2 (not shrink wrapped) long fo

[Bug target/103784] suboptimal code for returning bool value on target ppc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103784 --- Comment #13 from Surya Kumari Jangala --- Thanks David and Segher for your comments. I wanted to note down my analysis and thoughts from when I had worked on this bug in January. Ajit is looking into it now.

[Bug rtl-optimization/109009] Shrink Wrap missed opportunity

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109009 --- Comment #3 from Surya Kumari Jangala --- For the working case: * Input RTL to the IRA pass: BB2: set r123, r4 set r122, r3 set r120, compare(r123, 0) set r118, r122 if r120 jump BB4 else jump BB3 BB3: call bar() BB4: set r3,

[Bug target/103784] suboptimal code for returning bool value on target ppc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103784 --- Comment #10 from Surya Kumari Jangala --- After the expand pass, we have a single return bb which first zero extends r117 (this reg holds the return value which has been set by predecessor blocks). Zero extension is done because r117 is of m

[Bug rtl-optimization/109009] Shrink Wrap missed opportunity

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109009 --- Comment #2 from Surya Kumari Jangala --- For the working testcase: long foo (long i, long cond) { if (cond) bar (); return i; } The input RTL to the shrink wrap pass is: BB2: set r100, compare(r4, 0) if r100 jump BB4 else ju

[Bug rtl-optimization/109009] New: Shrink Wrap missed opportunity

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109009 Bug ID: 109009 Summary: Shrink Wrap missed opportunity Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: rtl-optimizati

[Bug target/106770] powerpc64le: Unnecessary xxpermdi before mfvsrd

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106770 --- Comment #12 from Surya Kumari Jangala --- (In reply to Jens Seifert from comment #6) > The left part of VSX registers overlaps with floating point registers, that > is why no register xxpermdi is required and mfvsrd can access all (left) > p

[Bug target/106770] powerpc64le: Unnecessary xxpermdi before mfvsrd

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106770 --- Comment #10 from Surya Kumari Jangala --- The swap pass analyzes vector computations and removes unnecessary doubleword swaps (xxswapdi instructions). The swap pass first constructs webs and removes swap instructions if possible. If the web

[Bug target/106770] powerpc64le: Unnecessary xxpermdi before mfvsrd

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106770 --- Comment #9 from Surya Kumari Jangala --- RTL after dfinit pass for the vec_sub() and the vec_extract(): (insn 13 12 14 2 (set (reg:V2DI 132 [ vrD.3952 ]) (minus:V2DI (subreg:V2DI (reg:V2DF 117 [ _1 ]) 0) (subreg:V2DI (re

[Bug target/106770] powerpc64le: Unnecessary xxpermdi before mfvsrd

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106770 --- Comment #8 from Surya Kumari Jangala --- While the first two xxpermdi's are fine, the 3rd one is a bug. It is incorrect. Here is the C code inlined into assembly: _Z4cmp2dd: .LFB1: .cfi_startproc // vector double va = ve

[Bug target/103784] suboptimal code for returning bool value on target ppc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103784 --- Comment #9 from Surya Kumari Jangala --- The same issue of unnecessary rldicl instruction is there if we change return value from bool to int. int foo (int a, int b) { if (a > 2) return 0; if (b < 10) return 1; return 0; }

[Bug target/103784] suboptimal code for returning bool value on target ppc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103784 --- Comment #8 from Surya Kumari Jangala --- Using -O3 with gcc13, I got (with the test in comment 2): For P8: cmpwi 0,3,2 bgt 0,.L3 subfic 4,4,9 srdi 3,4,63 xori 3,3,0x1 rldicl 3,3,0,63 b

[Bug middle-end/108073] [rs6000] sub-optimal float member accessing on struct parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108073 Surya Kumari Jangala changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jskumari at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug testsuite/107171] New test case gcc.target/powerpc/pr105586.c fails after its introduction in r13-2525-gbec35caafae8db

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107171 Surya Kumari Jangala changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNE

[Bug rtl-optimization/106418] '-fcompare-debug' failure w/ -mcpu=e500mc -O2 -fnon-call-exceptions -fsched-stalled-insns -fno-reorder-blocks -fno-thread-jumps -fno-tree-dce

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106418 Surya Kumari Jangala changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|UNCONFI

[Bug rtl-optimization/105586] [11/12 Regression] -fcompare-debug failure (length) with -O2 -fno-if-conversion -mtune=power4 -fno-guess-branch-probability

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105586 Surya Kumari Jangala changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNE

[Bug target/100799] Stackoverflow in optimized code on PPC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100799 Surya Kumari Jangala changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING --- Comment #21 from Sur

[Bug rtl-optimization/105586] [11/12 Regression] -fcompare-debug failure (length) with -O2 -fno-if-conversion -mtune=power4 -fno-guess-branch-probability

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105586 --- Comment #12 from Surya Kumari Jangala --- Richard has clarified here (https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-November/605386.html) that backporting is not required.

[Bug rtl-optimization/105586] [11/12 Regression] -fcompare-debug failure (length) with -O2 -fno-if-conversion -mtune=power4 -fno-guess-branch-probability

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105586 --- Comment #10 from Surya Kumari Jangala --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #9) > I read > as approval to backport, fwiw :-) I read that as: Since it is *not*

[Bug target/100799] Stackoverflow in optimized code on PPC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100799 --- Comment #19 from Surya Kumari Jangala --- There is a keyword called BIND(C) which can be specified on a Fortran procedure to make it interoperable. I tried this keyword on DGEBAL fortran routine which is a part of the openblas library and it

[Bug target/100799] Stackoverflow in optimized code on PPC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100799 --- Comment #18 from Surya Kumari Jangala --- I git cloned and built flexiblas to see what is the frame size and what is the assembly code generated for the flexiblas C wrapper routine for dgebal. The important assembly code snippets for dgebal

[Bug target/100799] Stackoverflow in optimized code on PPC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100799 --- Comment #17 from Surya Kumari Jangala --- I analysed the reduced test case specified in comment 15. In the .s file, the callee decrements r1 by 224, ie, callee’s frame size is 224. But there is an instruction in the callee that accesses into

[Bug target/100799] Stackoverflow in optimized code on PPC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100799 --- Comment #15 from Surya Kumari Jangala --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #14) > What is the exact command line (and relevant configuration!) required to > reproduce this? The reduced testcase is: SUBROUTINE DGEBAL( JOB,

[Bug rtl-optimization/105041] '-fcompare-debug' failure w/ -mcpu=power6 -O2 -fharden-compares -frename-registers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105041 Surya Kumari Jangala changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|FIXED |--- Status|RESOLVED

[Bug rtl-optimization/105041] '-fcompare-debug' failure w/ -mcpu=power6 -O2 -fharden-compares -frename-registers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105041 Surya Kumari Jangala changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug debug/105586] [11/12/13 Regression] -fcompare-debug failure (length) with -O2 -fno-if-conversion -mtune=power4 -fno-guess-branch-probability

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105586 Surya Kumari Jangala changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jskumari at gcc dot gnu.o

[Bug debug/105041] '-fcompare-debug' failure w/ -mcpu=power6 -O2 -fharden-compares -frename-registers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105041 --- Comment #6 from Surya Kumari Jangala --- I will be debugging the issue to figure the root cause.