| Message ID | 20160203222801.GH3017@tucnak.redhat.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote: > Hi! > > rs6000_expand_atomic_compare_and_swap uses oldval directly in > a comparison instruction, but oldval might be a CONST_INT not suitable > for the instruction (such as in the testcase below in SImode comparison > 0x8000 constant). We need to force those into register if they don't > satisfy the predicate. > > Bootstrapped/regtested on powerpc64{,le}-linux, ok for trunk? > > 2016-02-03 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> > > PR target/69644 > * config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_expand_atomic_compare_and_swap): > Force oldval into register if it does not satisfy reg_or_short_operand > predicate. Fix up formatting. > > * gcc.dg/pr69644.c: New test. Okay. Thanks, David
On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 05:34:17PM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote: > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote: > > Hi! > > > > rs6000_expand_atomic_compare_and_swap uses oldval directly in > > a comparison instruction, but oldval might be a CONST_INT not suitable > > for the instruction (such as in the testcase below in SImode comparison > > 0x8000 constant). We need to force those into register if they don't > > satisfy the predicate. > > > > Bootstrapped/regtested on powerpc64{,le}-linux, ok for trunk? > > > > 2016-02-03 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> > > > > PR target/69644 > > * config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_expand_atomic_compare_and_swap): > > Force oldval into register if it does not satisfy reg_or_short_operand > > predicate. Fix up formatting. > > > > * gcc.dg/pr69644.c: New test. > > Okay. This needs to go on gcc-5 and gcc-4.9 branches too, where it fixes pr69146. pr69146 and pr69644 are dups. OK to apply to the branches?
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 6:33 AM, Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 05:34:17PM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote: >> > Hi! >> > >> > rs6000_expand_atomic_compare_and_swap uses oldval directly in >> > a comparison instruction, but oldval might be a CONST_INT not suitable >> > for the instruction (such as in the testcase below in SImode comparison >> > 0x8000 constant). We need to force those into register if they don't >> > satisfy the predicate. >> > >> > Bootstrapped/regtested on powerpc64{,le}-linux, ok for trunk? >> > >> > 2016-02-03 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> >> > >> > PR target/69644 >> > * config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_expand_atomic_compare_and_swap): >> > Force oldval into register if it does not satisfy reg_or_short_operand >> > predicate. Fix up formatting. >> > >> > * gcc.dg/pr69644.c: New test. >> >> Okay. > > This needs to go on gcc-5 and gcc-4.9 branches too, where it fixes > pr69146. pr69146 and pr69644 are dups. OK to apply to the branches? Okay with me, but coordinate with Jakub. Thanks, David
On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 08:40:22AM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote: > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 6:33 AM, Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 05:34:17PM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote: > >> > Hi! > >> > > >> > rs6000_expand_atomic_compare_and_swap uses oldval directly in > >> > a comparison instruction, but oldval might be a CONST_INT not suitable > >> > for the instruction (such as in the testcase below in SImode comparison > >> > 0x8000 constant). We need to force those into register if they don't > >> > satisfy the predicate. > >> > > >> > Bootstrapped/regtested on powerpc64{,le}-linux, ok for trunk? > >> > > >> > 2016-02-03 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> > >> > > >> > PR target/69644 > >> > * config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_expand_atomic_compare_and_swap): > >> > Force oldval into register if it does not satisfy reg_or_short_operand > >> > predicate. Fix up formatting. > >> > > >> > * gcc.dg/pr69644.c: New test. > >> > >> Okay. > > > > This needs to go on gcc-5 and gcc-4.9 branches too, where it fixes > > pr69146. pr69146 and pr69644 are dups. OK to apply to the branches? > > Okay with me, but coordinate with Jakub. Ok with me to, just don't have spare cycles now to bootstrap/regtest it. So, Alan, if you could do that, it would be greatly appreciated. Jakub
On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 02:42:38PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 08:40:22AM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 6:33 AM, Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 05:34:17PM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote: > > >> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote: > > >> > Hi! > > >> > > > >> > rs6000_expand_atomic_compare_and_swap uses oldval directly in > > >> > a comparison instruction, but oldval might be a CONST_INT not suitable > > >> > for the instruction (such as in the testcase below in SImode comparison > > >> > 0x8000 constant). We need to force those into register if they don't > > >> > satisfy the predicate. > > >> > > > >> > Bootstrapped/regtested on powerpc64{,le}-linux, ok for trunk? > > >> > > > >> > 2016-02-03 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> > > >> > > > >> > PR target/69644 > > >> > * config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_expand_atomic_compare_and_swap): > > >> > Force oldval into register if it does not satisfy reg_or_short_operand > > >> > predicate. Fix up formatting. > > >> > > > >> > * gcc.dg/pr69644.c: New test. > > >> > > >> Okay. > > > > > > This needs to go on gcc-5 and gcc-4.9 branches too, where it fixes > > > pr69146. pr69146 and pr69644 are dups. OK to apply to the branches? > > > > Okay with me, but coordinate with Jakub. > > Ok with me to, just don't have spare cycles now to bootstrap/regtest it. > So, Alan, if you could do that, it would be greatly appreciated. I've regression tested powerpc64le-linux gcc-5 and gcc-4.9, all langs.
--- gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c.jj 2016-02-02 20:42:01.000000000 +0100 +++ gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c 2016-02-03 08:45:31.345521112 +0100 @@ -22275,6 +22275,9 @@ rs6000_expand_atomic_compare_and_swap (r else if (reg_overlap_mentioned_p (retval, oldval)) oldval = copy_to_reg (oldval); + if (mode != TImode && !reg_or_short_operand (oldval, mode)) + oldval = copy_to_mode_reg (mode, oldval); + mem = rs6000_pre_atomic_barrier (mem, mod_s); label1 = NULL_RTX; @@ -22289,10 +22292,8 @@ rs6000_expand_atomic_compare_and_swap (r x = retval; if (mask) - { - x = expand_simple_binop (SImode, AND, retval, mask, - NULL_RTX, 1, OPTAB_LIB_WIDEN); - } + x = expand_simple_binop (SImode, AND, retval, mask, + NULL_RTX, 1, OPTAB_LIB_WIDEN); cond = gen_reg_rtx (CCmode); /* If we have TImode, synthesize a comparison. */ --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr69644.c.jj 2016-02-03 08:42:20.827165549 +0100 +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr69644.c 2016-02-03 08:41:51.000000000 +0100 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +/* PR target/69644 */ +/* { dg-do compile } */ + +int +main () +{ + unsigned short x = 0x8000; + if (!__sync_bool_compare_and_swap (&x, 0x8000, 0) || x) + __builtin_abort (); + return 0; +}
Hi! rs6000_expand_atomic_compare_and_swap uses oldval directly in a comparison instruction, but oldval might be a CONST_INT not suitable for the instruction (such as in the testcase below in SImode comparison 0x8000 constant). We need to force those into register if they don't satisfy the predicate. Bootstrapped/regtested on powerpc64{,le}-linux, ok for trunk? 2016-02-03 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> PR target/69644 * config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_expand_atomic_compare_and_swap): Force oldval into register if it does not satisfy reg_or_short_operand predicate. Fix up formatting. * gcc.dg/pr69644.c: New test. Jakub