Hi Nick, On 23 January 2017 at 10:04, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: > On Fri, 20 Jan 2017, Nick Clifton wrote: > >> Hi Guys, >> >> [I have been asked to look at this PR in the hopes that it can be >> fixed soon and so no longer act as a blocker for the gcc 7 branch]. >> >> It seems to me that Richard's proposed patch does work: >> >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-11/msg00909.html >> >> The only problem is that the check_effective_target_vect_hw_misalign >> proc is always returning 0 (or false) for ARM, even when unaligned >> vectors are supported. This is why Richard's patch introduces a new >> failure for the arm-* targets. >> >> So what I would like to suggest is an extended patch (attached) which >> also updates the check_effective_target_vect_hw_misalign proc to use >> the check_effective_target_arm_vect_no_misalign proc. With this patch >> applied not only does the gcc.dg/vect/vect-strided-a-u8-i2-gap.c test >> for both big-endian and little-endian arm targets, but there is also a >> significant reduction in the number of failures in the gcc.dg/vect >> tests overall: >> >> Little Endian ARM: >> < # of expected passes 3275 >> < # of unexpected failures 63 >> < # of unexpected successes 125 >> < # of expected failures 123 >> < # of unsupported tests 153 >> --- >> > # of expected passes 3448 >> > # of unexpected failures 2 >> > # of unexpected successes 14 >> > # of expected failures 131 >> > # of unsupported tests 151 >> >> Big Endian ARM: >> < # of expected passes 2995 >> < # of unexpected failures 269 >> < # of unexpected successes 21 >> < # of expected failures 128 >> --- >> > # of expected passes 3037 >> > # of unexpected failures 127 >> > # of unexpected successes 24 >> > # of expected failures 228 >> >> Which looks like a win to me. So - any objections to my applying this >> patch and then closing the PR ? > > Ok. >
I must be missing something, but I see many regressions since you committed this patch (r244796). See http://people.linaro.org/~christophe.lyon/cross-validation/gcc/trunk/244796/report-build-info.html for more details. In short, on arm-*, gcc.dg/vect/vect-strided-a-u8-i2-gap.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 gcc.dg/vect/vect-strided-a-u8-i2-gap.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 now FAIL instead of PASS. on armeb, there are many more differences. Christophe > Thanks, > Richard. > >> Cheers >> Nick >> >> gcc/ChangeLog >> 2017-01-20 Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> >> Nick Clifton <ni...@redhat.com> >> >> PR testsuite/78421 >> * lib/target-supports.exp (check_effective_target_vect_hw_misalign): >> If the target is ARM return the result of the >> check_effective_target_arm_vect_no_misalign proc. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-strided-a-u8-i2-gap.c: If the target does not >> support unaligned vectors then only expect one of the loops to be >> unrolled. >> >> > > -- > Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> > SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB > 21284 (AG Nuernberg)
