On 01/03/2018 02:23 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 06:26:12PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> 2017-10-23  Richard Sandiford  <richard.sandif...@linaro.org>
>>          Alan Hayward  <alan.hayw...@arm.com>
>>          David Sherwood  <david.sherw...@arm.com>
> ...
> 
>> --- /dev/null        2017-10-21 08:51:42.385141415 +0100
>> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect-opt-info-1.c   2017-10-23 17:22:26.571498977 
>> +0100
>> @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
>> +/* { dg-options "-std=c99 -fopt-info -O3" } */
>> +
>> +void
>> +vadd (int *dst, int *op1, int *op2, int count)
>> +{
>> +  for (int i = 0; i < count; ++i)
>> +    dst[i] = op1[i] + op2[i];
>> +}
>> +
>> +/* { dg-message "loop vectorized" "" { target *-*-* } 6 } */
>> +/* { dg-message "loop versioned for vectorization because of possible 
>> aliasing" "" { target *-*-* } 6 } */
> 
> This testcase fails e.g. on i686-linux.  The problem is
> 1) it really should be at least guarded with
> /* { dg-do compile { target vect_int } } */
> because on targets that can't vectorize even simple int operations
> this will obviously fail
> 2) that won't help for i686 though, because we need -msse2 added
> to options for it to work; that is normally added by
> check_vect_support_and_set_flags
> only when in vect.exp.  If it was just that target, we could add
> dg-additional-options, but I'm afraid many other targets add some options.
> 
> The following works for me, calling it nodump-* ensures that
> -fdump-tree-* isn't added, which I believe is essential for the testcase;
> tested on x86_64-linux with
> RUNTESTFLAGS='--target_board=unix\{-m32,-m32/-mno-sse,-m64\} vect.exp=nodump*'
> ok for trunk?
> 
> Sadly I don't have your broken development version of the patch, so can't
> verify it fails with the broken patch.
> 
> 2018-01-03  Jakub Jelinek  <ja...@redhat.com>
> 
>       * gcc.dg/vect-opt-info-1.c: Moved to ...
>       * gcc.dg/vect/nodump-vect-opt-info-1.c: ... here.  Only run on
>       vect_int targets, use dg-additional-options instead of dg-options and
>       use relative line numbers instead of absolute.
OK.
jeff

Reply via email to