[Bug target/55212] [SH] Switch to LRA

["kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212

--- Comment #98 from Kazumoto Kojima <kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #97)
> I've compared the results of r227512 without LRA and r227682 with LRA. 
> Below are the new failures.

A typical example of pr64661-x.c regressions is:
[LRA]
test_37_1:
        stc     gbr,r3  ! 22    store_gbr       [length = 2]
        mova    1f,r0   ! 6     atomic_add_fetchqi_soft_tcb     [length = 20]
        mov     #(0f-1f),r1
        .align 2
        mov.l   r0,@(128,gbr)
0:      mov.b   @(4,r3),r0
        ...

[no-LRA]
test_37_1:
        mova    1f,r0   ! 6     atomic_add_fetchqi_soft_tcb     [length = 20]
        mov     #(0f-1f),r1
        .align 2
        mov.l   r0,@(128,gbr)
0:      mov.b   @(4,gbr),r0
        ...

where

(define_insn_and_split "atomic_fetch_<fetchop_name><mode>_soft_tcb"
  [(set (match_operand:QIHISI 0 "arith_reg_dest" "=&r")
        (match_operand:QIHISI 1 "atomic_mem_operand_1" "=SraSdd"))
   ...
   (clobber (reg:SI R0_REG))
   (clobber (reg:SI R1_REG))]
  "TARGET_ATOMIC_SOFT_TCB"
{
  return "\r    mova    1f,r0"                  "\n"
         "      .align 2"                       "\n"
         "      mov     #(0f-1f),r1"            "\n"
         "      mov.l   r0,@(%O3,gbr)"          "\n"
         "0:    mov.<bwl>       %1,r0"          "\n"
         ...

The .ira dump shows

(insn 6 5 7 2 (parallel [
            (set (reg:QI 167)
                (plus:QI (mem/v:QI (plus:SI (reg:SI 144 gbr)
                            (const_int 4 [0x4])) [-1  S1 A8])
                    (const_int 1 [0x1])))
            (set (mem/v:QI (plus:SI (reg:SI 144 gbr)
                        (const_int 4 [0x4])) [-1  S1 A8])
                (unspec:QI [
                        (plus:QI (mem/v:QI (plus:SI (reg:SI 144 gbr)
                                    (const_int 4 [0x4])) [-1  S1 A8])
                            (const_int 1 [0x1]))
                    ] UNSPEC_ATOMIC))
...

which looks the code generated with the old RA.  It seems that
old RA passes gbr+4 addressing as is but LRA spills gbr with r3
according to the constraint SraSdd.  Perhaps LRA is more strict
in this regard.
I guess that these pr64661-x.c regressions are not so problem, though.
I'm not sure whether hiconst.c regression is serious or not.
The serious one would be

Running target sh-sim/-m2/-mb
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20040709-2.c   -Os  execution test

My sh4-unknown-linux-gnu test also shows another execution
errors for libstdc++-v3.

New tests that FAIL:

22_locale/money_get/get/wchar_t/14.cc execution test
22_locale/money_get/get/wchar_t/19.cc execution test
22_locale/money_get/get/wchar_t/22131.cc execution test
22_locale/money_get/get/wchar_t/38399.cc execution test
22_locale/money_get/get/wchar_t/39168.cc execution test
22_locale/money_get/get/wchar_t/6.cc execution test
22_locale/money_get/get/wchar_t/8.cc execution test
22_locale/money_get/get/wchar_t/9.cc execution test
22_locale/money_put/put/wchar_t/39168.cc execution test
22_locale/money_put/put/wchar_t/5.cc execution test
22_locale/money_put/put/wchar_t/6.cc execution test

These tests compiled with -mlra don't fail with libstdc++-v3
library compiled with -mno-lra, i.e. libstdc++-v3 is miscompiled
with -mlra.  These wrong code problems should be resolved before
witch to LRA.