On Mon, 22 Mar 2021 at 18:38, Vladimir Makarov via Gcc-patches
<gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 2021-03-21 8:51 a.m., Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > Vladimir Makarov <vmaka...@redhat.com> writes:
> >> On 2021-03-19 11:42 a.m., Richard Sandiford wrote:
> >>> Vladimir Makarov via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
> >>>> The following patch solves P1 PR99581
> >>>>
> >>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99581
> >>>>
> >>>> The patch was successfully tested and bootstrapped on x86-64, ppc64le,
> >>>> aarch64.
> >>>>
> >>>> Is it ok for the trunk?
> >>> I'm not trying to reject the patch as such. I just think we need to
> >>> have a clearer picture first.
> >>>
> >> I agree that 'o' should be treated as a subset of 'm' and therefore its
> >> definition should have a check as 'm' has. Still my patch is not about
> >> treatment of constraint 'o' only.
> >>
> >> My approach for LRA development is minimal changes, as radical changes
> >> (even if they look right) results long lasting unpredictable effects on
> >> many targets.
> >>
> >> The patch in which you introduced a new function valid_address_p and new
> >> treatment of **all** memory constraints was too big change with this
> >> point of view and finally it resulted in this problem after recent
> >> partially fixing mess in process_address_1.
> >>
> >> My patch fixes this radical change. So I think we still need the patch
> >> I've submitted.
> > OK, fair enough. I have some minor cosmetic comments below, but
> > otherwise the patch is OK for trunk and branch.
> >
> Richard, thank you for your review and approval. I incorporated all
> your proposals into the patch and committed it into the trunk. The
> final patch is in the attachment.
>
Hi,
This patch causes regressions (116) on aarch64:
gcc.target/aarch64/sve/acle/aarch64-sve-acle-asm.exp
gcc.target/aarch64/sve/acle/asm/ld1ro_bf16.c -std=gnu90 -O2
-fno-schedule-insns -DCHECK_ASM --save-temps -DTEST_FULL
check-function-bodies ld1ro_bf16_112
gcc.target/aarch64/sve/acle/asm/ld1ro_bf16.c -std=gnu90 -O2
-fno-schedule-insns -DCHECK_ASM --save-temps -DTEST_FULL
check-function-bodies ld1ro_bf16_16
gcc.target/aarch64/sve/acle/asm/ld1ro_bf16.c -std=gnu90 -O2
-fno-schedule-insns -DCHECK_ASM --save-temps -DTEST_FULL
check-function-bodies ld1ro_bf16_index
gcc.target/aarch64/sve/acle/asm/ld1ro_bf16.c -std=gnu90 -O2
-fno-schedule-insns -DCHECK_ASM --save-temps -DTEST_FULL
check-function-bodies ld1ro_bf16_m128
gcc.target/aarch64/sve/acle/asm/ld1ro_bf16.c -std=gnu90 -O2
-fno-schedule-insns -DCHECK_ASM --save-temps -DTEST_FULL
check-function-bodies ld1ro_bf16_m16
[....]
Not sure why you didn't see them during your testing?
Can you check?
Thanks
