diff mbox

[Ping] Re: [PR63762][4.9] Backport the patch which fixes "GCC generates UNPREDICTABLE STR with Rn = Rt for arm"

Message ID 54761769.3040200@arm.com
State New
Headers show

Commit Message

Renlin Li Nov. 26, 2014, 6:09 p.m. UTC
On 26/11/14 12:16, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 4:07 AM, Renlin Li <renlin.li@arm.com> wrote:
>> On 20/11/14 16:17, Renlin Li wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> This is a backport for gcc-4_9-branch of the patch "[PR63762]GCC generates
>>> UNPREDICTABLE STR with Rn = Rt for arm" posted in:
>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg02253.html
>>>
>>> arm-none-eabi has been test on the model, no new issues. bootstrapping and
>>> regression tested on x86, no new issues.
>>>
>>> Is it Okay for gcc-4_9-branch?
>>>
>>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>>>
>>> 2014-11-20  Renlin Li  <Renlin.Li@arm.com>
>>>
>>>      PR middle-end/63762
>>>      * ira.c (ira): Update preferred class.
>>>
>>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>>>
>>> 2014-11-20  Renlin Li  <Renlin.Li@arm.com>
>>>
>>>      PR middle-end/63762
>>>      * gcc.dg/pr63762.c: New.
>> Ping for it.
>>
> Please verify if it is the real fix for
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63661
>
> If yes, please add a testcase for PR 63661 and mention it in
> your ChangeLog entry.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
Hi H.J.

Yes, I have verified that, this patch additionally fixes PR 63661.

I observed the same behaviour as I saw on arm backend. It will be great 
if you can double check they are caused by exactly the same reason.



A new testcase has been added, ChangeLog has been updated to reflect the 
change. Updated patch has bee attached.
Okay for gcc-4_9-branch?

Regards,
Renlin Li


gcc/ChangeLog:

2014-11-26  Renlin Li  <Renlin.Li@arm.com>

     PR middle-end/63762
     PR middle-end/63661
     * ira.c (ira): Update preferred class.

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:

2014-11-26  Renlin Li  <Renlin.Li@arm.com>

     PR middle-end/63661
     PR middle-end/63762
     * testsuite/gcc.dg/pr63661.c: New.
     * testsuite/gcc.dg/pr63762.c: New.

Comments

H.J. Lu Nov. 26, 2014, 6:12 p.m. UTC | #1
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Renlin Li <renlin.li@arm.com> wrote:
> On 26/11/14 12:16, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 4:07 AM, Renlin Li <renlin.li@arm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 20/11/14 16:17, Renlin Li wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> This is a backport for gcc-4_9-branch of the patch "[PR63762]GCC
>>>> generates
>>>> UNPREDICTABLE STR with Rn = Rt for arm" posted in:
>>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg02253.html
>>>>
>>>> arm-none-eabi has been test on the model, no new issues. bootstrapping
>>>> and
>>>> regression tested on x86, no new issues.
>>>>
>>>> Is it Okay for gcc-4_9-branch?
>>>>
>>>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>>>>
>>>> 2014-11-20  Renlin Li  <Renlin.Li@arm.com>
>>>>
>>>>      PR middle-end/63762
>>>>      * ira.c (ira): Update preferred class.
>>>>
>>>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>>>>
>>>> 2014-11-20  Renlin Li  <Renlin.Li@arm.com>
>>>>
>>>>      PR middle-end/63762
>>>>      * gcc.dg/pr63762.c: New.
>>>
>>> Ping for it.
>>>
>> Please verify if it is the real fix for
>>
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63661
>>
>> If yes, please add a testcase for PR 63661 and mention it in
>> your ChangeLog entry.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
> Hi H.J.
>
> Yes, I have verified that, this patch additionally fixes PR 63661.
>
> I observed the same behaviour as I saw on arm backend. It will be great if
> you can double check they are caused by exactly the same reason.

I will ask our people to take a look.

>
>
> A new testcase has been added, ChangeLog has been updated to reflect the
> change. Updated patch has bee attached.
> Okay for gcc-4_9-branch?
>
> Regards,
> Renlin Li
>
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> 2014-11-26  Renlin Li  <Renlin.Li@arm.com>
>
>     PR middle-end/63762
>     PR middle-end/63661
>     * ira.c (ira): Update preferred class.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> 2014-11-26  Renlin Li  <Renlin.Li@arm.com>
>
>     PR middle-end/63661
>     PR middle-end/63762
>     * testsuite/gcc.dg/pr63661.c: New.
>     * testsuite/gcc.dg/pr63762.c: New.
>
>

pr63661.c should be moved to gcc.target/i386 and run it
on PIC target.

Thanks.
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/gcc/ira.c b/gcc/ira.c
index 4d91d21..0c703c5 100644
--- a/gcc/ira.c
+++ b/gcc/ira.c
@@ -5347,7 +5347,18 @@  ira (FILE *f)
 	      ira_allocno_iterator ai;
 
 	      FOR_EACH_ALLOCNO (a, ai)
-		ALLOCNO_REGNO (a) = REGNO (ALLOCNO_EMIT_DATA (a)->reg);
+		{
+		  int old_regno = ALLOCNO_REGNO (a);
+		  int new_regno = REGNO (ALLOCNO_EMIT_DATA (a)->reg);
+
+		  ALLOCNO_REGNO (a) = new_regno;
+
+		  if (old_regno != new_regno)
+		    setup_reg_classes (new_regno, reg_preferred_class (old_regno),
+		                       reg_alternate_class (old_regno),
+		                       reg_allocno_class (old_regno));
+		}
+
 	    }
 	  else
 	    {
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr63661.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr63661.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..261f616
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr63661.c
@@ -0,0 +1,76 @@ 
+/* PR middle-end/63661 */
+/* { dg-do run { target x86_64-*-* } } */
+/* { dg-options "-mtune=nehalem -fPIC -O2" } */
+
+static void __attribute__((noinline,noclone,hot))
+foo (double a, double q, double *ff, double *gx, int e, int ni)
+{
+  union
+    {
+      double n;
+      unsigned long long o;
+    } punner;
+
+  punner.n = q;
+   __builtin_printf("B: 0x%016llx ---- %g\n", punner.o, q);
+
+  if(q != 5)
+    __builtin_abort();
+}
+
+static int __attribute__((noinline,noclone,hot))
+bar (int order, double q, double c[])
+{
+  int ni, nn, i, e;
+  double g2, x2, de, s, ratio, ff;
+
+  nn = 0;
+  e = order & 1;
+  s = 0;
+  ratio = 0;
+  x2 = 0;
+  g2 = 0;
+
+  if(q == 0.0)
+    return 0;
+
+  if (order < 5)
+    {
+      ratio = 1.0 / q;
+      nn = order;
+    }
+
+  ni = -nn;
+
+  while(1)
+    {
+      de = ratio - g2 - x2;
+
+      foo (0, q, &ff, &g2, e, ni);
+
+      if((int)de == 0)
+        break;
+    }
+
+  s += 2 * nn * c[nn];
+
+  for (i = 0; i < 1; i++)
+    {
+      c[0] = nn;
+      for (; i < 10; i++)
+        c[i] = 0.0;
+      c[0] /= s;
+    }
+
+  return 0;
+}
+
+int
+main ()
+{
+  double c[1000];
+
+  __builtin_printf("A: 0x%016llx\n", (unsigned long long)c);
+  bar (1, 5.0, c);
+  return 0;
+}
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr63762.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr63762.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..df11067
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr63762.c
@@ -0,0 +1,77 @@ 
+/* PR middle-end/63762 */
+/* { dg-do assemble } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2" } */
+
+#include <stdlib.h>
+
+void *astFree ();
+void *astMalloc ();
+void astNegate (void *);
+int astGetNegated (void *);
+void astGetRegionBounds (void *, double *, double *);
+int astResampleF (void *, ...);
+
+extern int astOK;
+
+int
+MaskF (int inside, int ndim, const int lbnd[], const int ubnd[],
+       float in[], float val)
+{
+
+  void *used_region;
+  float *c, *d, *out, *tmp_out;
+  double *lbndgd, *ubndgd;
+  int *lbndg, *ubndg, idim, ipix, nax, nin, nout, npix, npixg, result = 0;
+  if (!astOK) return result;
+  lbndg = astMalloc (sizeof (int)*(size_t) ndim);
+  ubndg = astMalloc (sizeof (int)*(size_t) ndim);
+  lbndgd = astMalloc (sizeof (double)*(size_t) ndim);
+  ubndgd = astMalloc (sizeof (double)*(size_t) ndim);
+  if (astOK)
+    {
+      astGetRegionBounds (used_region, lbndgd, ubndgd);
+      npix = 1;
+      npixg = 1;
+      for (idim = 0; idim < ndim; idim++)
+        {
+          lbndg[ idim ] = lbnd[ idim ];
+          ubndg[ idim ] = ubnd[ idim ];
+          npix *= (ubnd[ idim ] - lbnd[ idim ] + 1);
+          if (npixg >= 0) npixg *= (ubndg[ idim ] - lbndg[ idim ] + 1);
+        }
+      if (npixg <= 0 && astOK)
+        {
+          if ((inside != 0) == (astGetNegated( used_region ) != 0))
+            {
+              c = in;
+              for (ipix = 0; ipix < npix; ipix++) *(c++) = val;
+              result = npix;
+            }
+        }
+      else if (npixg > 0 && astOK)
+        {
+          if ((inside != 0) == (astGetNegated (used_region) != 0))
+            {
+              tmp_out = astMalloc (sizeof (float)*(size_t) npix);
+              if (tmp_out)
+                {
+                  c = tmp_out;
+                  for (ipix = 0; ipix < npix; ipix++) *(c++) = val;
+                  result = npix - npixg;
+                }
+              out = tmp_out;
+            }
+          else
+            {
+              tmp_out = NULL;
+              out = in;
+            }
+          if (inside) astNegate (used_region);
+          result += astResampleF (used_region, ndim, lbnd, ubnd, in, NULL,
+                                  NULL, NULL, 0, 0.0, 100, val, ndim,
+                                  lbnd, ubnd, lbndg, ubndg, out, NULL);
+          if (inside) astNegate (used_region);
+        }
+    }
+  return result;
+}