2016-11-19 13:17 GMT+03:00 Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com>:
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 9:05 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 09:30:06PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 08:41:01PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> > I'm seeing lots of ICEs with this.
>>>
>>> Here is untested fix for that, will bootstrap/regtest it soon (after my
>>> current set of bootstraps finishes).
>>>
>>> 2016-11-18 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
>>>
>>> * config/i386/i386.c (ix86_expand_builtin): Remove msk_mov variable,
>>> don't initialize it, don't use it for the case where it isn't
>>> provable %{z} nor using the same argument, instead move merge
>>> argument into a new pseudo and use that as target. Formatting fixes.
>>
>> Now successfully bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux and
>> fixed a couple of FAILs, but not tons of others.
>>
>> Here is another patch I'm going to test which fixes many other FAILs, but
>> still some are left:
>> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/funcspec-3.c (internal compiler error)
>> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/funcspec-3.c (test for excess errors)
>> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/mvc1.c (internal compiler error)
>> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/mvc1.c (test for excess errors)
>> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/mvc6.c (internal compiler error)
>> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/mvc6.c (test for excess errors)
>> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/mvc6.c scan-assembler vpshufb
>> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/mvc6.c scan-assembler punpcklbw
>> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/mvc8.c (internal compiler error)
>> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/mvc8.c (test for excess errors)
>> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr67995-2.c (internal compiler error)
>> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr67995-2.c (test for excess errors)
>> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr71652-3.c (internal compiler error)
>> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr71652-3.c (test for errors, line 5)
>> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr71652-3.c (test for excess errors)
>
> I wonder why patch submitter didn't get these failures during
> regtesting. There are plenty of tests (the above multi-vrsioning
> tests) that depend on correct handling of ISA variables. I assumed
> that these tests passed and consequently didn't went deep into the
> implementation, but rather requested a couple of additional tests that
> exercised added functionality.some more.
Completely my bad. Starting from addition last intrinsics testing gone wrong.
Will double check next time to avoid repeating in the future.
>> Will debug even those.
Thank you, Jakub.
