Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

PowerPC - llc is spewing remarks in latest build #31532

Closed
llvmbot opened this issue Mar 8, 2017 · 18 comments
Closed

PowerPC - llc is spewing remarks in latest build #31532

llvmbot opened this issue Mar 8, 2017 · 18 comments

Comments

@llvmbot
Copy link
Collaborator

@llvmbot llvmbot commented Mar 8, 2017

Bugzilla Link 32184
Resolution FIXED
Resolved on Apr 03, 2017 18:28
Version 4.0
OS Linux
Blocks #31409
Reporter LLVM Bugzilla Contributor
CC @zmodem,@hfinkel,@tstellar

Extended Description

My latest build of the 4.0 branch is generating a lot of remarks, though I'm not explicitly asking for them.

llvm/4.0/bin/llc /tmp/5-oROzlY7V8.llvm -mcpu=native -O2 -code-model=large -o /tmp/X-ot2IA_JlK.s
remark: foobar.cpp:1150:1: failed to move load with loop-invariant address because the loop may invalidate its value

@llvmbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@llvmbot llvmbot commented Mar 8, 2017

I'll try to reproduce.

@llvmbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@llvmbot llvmbot commented Mar 9, 2017

OK, that's probably because PPC schedules an IR LICM pass unlike other targets?

@llvmbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@llvmbot llvmbot commented Mar 9, 2017

OK, reproduced:

$ ./bin/llc ../test/Transforms/LICM/opt-remarks-intervening-store.ll -O2 -march=ppc64
remark: /tmp/kk.c:2:20: failed to move load with loop-invariant address because the loop may invalidate its value

@llvmbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@llvmbot llvmbot commented Mar 9, 2017

Fix
The attached patch fixes it for me.

@llvmbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@llvmbot llvmbot commented Mar 9, 2017

Hans, can you please commit this to the 4.0 branch? This is a partial backport of r293110 from trunk.

@zmodem
Copy link
Collaborator

@zmodem zmodem commented Mar 9, 2017

I suppose this regressed with r291648?

We're very late in the release process and I was hoping to promote rc4 to final today. I would rather not do an rc5.

How bad is this? Could it be emitting remarks for Clang even if users haven't asked for them?

@zmodem
Copy link
Collaborator

@zmodem zmodem commented Mar 9, 2017

How bad is this? Could it be emitting remarks for Clang even if users
haven't asked for them?

Oh wait, your patch is for llc.

I don't think we can hold the release for this.

@llvmbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@llvmbot llvmbot commented Mar 9, 2017

Sure. Can you still commit it on the branch for me?

@hfinkel
Copy link
Collaborator

@hfinkel hfinkel commented Mar 9, 2017

How bad is this? Could it be emitting remarks for Clang even if users
haven't asked for them?

Oh wait, your patch is for llc.

I don't think we can hold the release for this.

I agree, we shouldn't hold the release. It should end up in the release branch for the point release, however.

@zmodem
Copy link
Collaborator

@zmodem zmodem commented Mar 9, 2017

How bad is this? Could it be emitting remarks for Clang even if users
haven't asked for them?

Oh wait, your patch is for llc.

I don't think we can hold the release for this.

I agree, we shouldn't hold the release. It should end up in the release
branch for the point release, however.

Yes. Please file a blocker against 32061 for that.

@llvmbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@llvmbot llvmbot commented Mar 9, 2017

Done.

@llvmbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@llvmbot llvmbot commented Mar 21, 2017

Eric, can you please confirm if this fixes the problem for you too?

@llvmbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@llvmbot llvmbot commented Mar 22, 2017

Eric, can you please confirm if this fixes the problem for you too?

Hi Adam, can you tell me what commit to look for? Thanks in advance.

@llvmbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@llvmbot llvmbot commented Mar 22, 2017

Eric, please apply the patch attached to this bug. It's not yet committed I think.

@llvmbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@llvmbot llvmbot commented Mar 23, 2017

The patch looks good. Not sure about "resolved" status though, since it does not appear to be checked in.

@llvmbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@llvmbot llvmbot commented Mar 23, 2017

Thanks. Good point on the status, moved it back.

When Hans checks it in we can move it back to RESOLVED.

@llvmbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@llvmbot llvmbot commented Apr 3, 2017

Description of the bug for the 4.0.1 release:

Partial merge of r293110 into the 4.0 branch:

Avoid printing optimization remarks from llc unless they are enabled.

@tstellar
Copy link
Collaborator

@tstellar tstellar commented Apr 4, 2017

Merged: r299409

@llvmbot llvmbot transferred this issue from llvm/llvm-bugzilla-archive Dec 10, 2021
This issue was closed.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
4 participants