On Fri, 2015-06-12 at 17:36 +0100, Vidya Praveen wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 01:34:18PM +0100, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-04-30 at 18:26 +0800, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 9:26 PM, Bill Schmidt
> > > <wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2015-04-27 at 14:23 +0800, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> > > >> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 1:42 AM, Bill Schmidt
> > > >> <wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> > Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-33.c
> > > >> > ===================================================================
> > > >> > --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-33.c (revision 221118)
> > > >> > +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-33.c (working copy)
> > > >> > @@ -36,9 +36,10 @@ int main (void)
> > > >> > return main1 ();
> > > >> > }
> > > >> >
> > > >> > +/* vect_hw_misalign && { ! vect64 } */
> > > >> >
> > > >> > /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "vectorized 1 loops" 1 "vect"
> > > >> > } } */
> > > >> > -/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "Vectorizing an unaligned access"
> > > >> > "vect" { target { vect_hw_misalign && { {! vect64} ||
> > > >> > vect_multiple_sizes } } } } } */
> > > >> > +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "Vectorizing an unaligned access"
> > > >> > "vect" { target { { { ! powerpc*-*-* } && vect_hw_misalign } && { {
> > > >> > ! vect64 } || vect_multiple_sizes } } } } } */
> > > >> > /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "Alignment of access forced using
> > > >> > peeling" "vect" { target { vector_alignment_reachable && { vect64 &&
> > > >> > {! vect_multiple_sizes} } } } } } */
> > > >> > /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced
> > > >> > using versioning" 1 "vect" { target { { {!
> > > >> > vector_alignment_reachable} || {! vect64} } && {! vect_hw_misalign}
> > > >> > } } } } */
> > > >> > /* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "vect" } } */
> > > >>
> > > >> Hi Bill,
> > > >> With this change, the test case is skipped on aarch64 now. Since it
> > > >> passed before, Is it expected to act like this on 64bit platforms?
> > > >
> > > > Hi Bin,
> > > >
> > > > No, that's a mistake on my part -- thanks for the report! That first
> > > > added line was not intended to be part of the patch:
> > > >
> > > > +/* vect_hw_misalign && { ! vect64 } */
> > > >
> > > > Please try removing that line and verify that the patch succeeds again
> > > > for ARM. Assuming so, I'll prepare a patch to fix this.
> > > >
> > > > It looks like this mistake was introduced only in this particular test,
> > > > but please let me know if you see any other anomalies.
> > > Hi Bill,
> > > I chased the wrong branch. The test disappeared on fsf-48 branch in
> > > out build, rather than trunk. I guess it's not your patch's fault.
> > > Will follow up and get back to you later.
> > > Sorry for the inconvenience.
> >
> > OK, thanks for letting me know! There was still a bad line in this
> > patch, although it was only introduced in 5.1 and trunk, so I guess that
> > wasn't responsible in this case. Thanks for checking!
>
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> In 4.8 branch, you have changed:
>
> -/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 0
> "vect" } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 0
> "vect" { target { ! vect_hw_misalign } } } } */
>
> Whereas your comment says:
>
> 2015-04-24 Bill Schmidt <wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>
> Backport from mainline r222349
> 2015-04-22 Bill Schmidt <wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>
> PR target/65456
> [...]
> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-33.c: Exclude unaligned access test for
> POWER8.
> [...]
>
> There wasn't an unaligned access test in the first place. But if you wanted to
> introduce it and exclude it for POWER8 then it should've been:
>
> ... { { ! powerpc*-*-* } && vect_hw_misalign } ...
>
> like you have done for the trunk. At the moment, this change has made the test
> to be skipped for AArch64. It should've been skipped for x86_64-*-* and
> i*86-*-*
> as well.
>
> I believe it wasn't intended to be skipped so?
Right, wasn't intended to be skipped. This test changed substantially
between 4.8 and 4.9, so when I did the backport I tried (and failed) to
adjust it properly.
Because the sense of the test has been reversed, I believe the correct
change is
/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 0 "vect"
{ target { { ! powerpc*-*-* } || { ! vect_hw_misalign } } } } } */
I'll give that a quick test.
Bill
>
> Regards
> VP.
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > bin
> > > >
> > > > Thanks very much!
> > > >
> > > > Bill
> > > >>
> > > >> PASS->NA: gcc.dg/vect/vect-33.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects
> > > >> scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 0
> > > >> PASS->NA: gcc.dg/vect/vect-33.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing
> > > >> an unaligned access" 0
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >> bin
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
