https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115934
Bug ID: 115934
Summary: [15 Regression] nvptx vs. ivopts: replace
constant_multiple_of with
aff_combination_constant_multiple_p [PR114932]
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: testsuite-fail
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org, vries at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: nvptx
Recent commit r15-1809-g735edbf1e2479fa2323a2b4a9714fae1a0925f74 "ivopts:
replace constant_multiple_of with aff_combination_constant_multiple_p
[PR114932]" is causing one regression for nvptx target:
PASS: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr43378.c (test for excess errors)
PASS: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr43378.c scan-tree-dump-times ivopts "rite_[0-9]* =
rite_[0-9]* - element" 1
[-PASS:-]{+FAIL:+} gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr43378.c scan-tree-dump-times ivopts
"left_[0-9]* = left_[0-9]* \\+ element|left_[0-9]* = element_[0-9]*\\(D\\) \\+
left" 1
Before (or, with this commit locally reverted), we have no 'diff' between the
previous dump file: 'pr43378.c.186t.slp1' vs. 'pr43378.c.188t.ivopts', but now
there's this:
--- pr43378.c.186t.slp1 2024-07-15 11:48:57.498943077 +0200
+++ pr43378.c.188t.ivopts 2024-07-15 11:48:57.498943077 +0200
@@ -3,6 +3,18 @@
void foo (int left, int rite, int element)
{
+ unsigned int _1;
+ unsigned int _2;
+ unsigned int _11;
+ unsigned int _12;
+ unsigned int _13;
+ unsigned int _17;
+ unsigned int _19;
+ unsigned int _20;
+ unsigned int _21;
+ unsigned int _22;
+ unsigned int _23;
+
<bb 2> [local count: 118111600]:
if (left_4(D) <= rite_5(D))
goto <bb 5>; [89.00%]
@@ -12,12 +24,23 @@
<bb 5> [local count: 105119324]:
<bb 3> [local count: 955630224]:
- # left_14 = PHI <left_10(6), left_4(D)(5)>
# rite_15 = PHI <rite_8(6), rite_5(D)(5)>
+ _17 = (unsigned int) left_4(D);
+ _2 = (unsigned int) rite_5(D);
+ _1 = _2 + _17;
+ _13 = (unsigned int) rite_15;
+ _11 = -_13;
+ _12 = _1 + _11;
+ left_14 = (int) _12;
rite_8 = rite_15 - element_7(D);
bar (left_14, rite_8, element_7(D));
- left_10 = element_7(D) + left_14;
- if (rite_8 >= left_10)
+ _19 = (unsigned int) left_4(D);
+ _20 = (unsigned int) rite_5(D);
+ _21 = _19 + _20;
+ _22 = (unsigned int) rite_8;
+ _23 = _21 - _22;
+ left_18 = (int) _23;
+ if (rite_8 >= left_18)
goto <bb 6>; [89.00%]
else
goto <bb 4>; [11.00%]
(I've not yet looked any deeper.)
