On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Michael Zolotukhin <michael.v.zolotuk...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, Richard, > Accidentally, the first version of the patch (which contained changes > in the original files without duplicating them, and which was approved > by Ira Rosen) has already been checked-in to trunk - could you also > approve reverting the original tests back? With this revert I'll also > commit the last version of the patch.
Yes, reverting that is ok. > Michael > > On 7 December 2011 16:08, Richard Guenther <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Michael Zolotukhin >> <michael.v.zolotuk...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Thanks, Richard. >>> Should somebody else approve the patch or is it ok for commit to trunk? >> >> It's ok to commit. >> >> Richard. >> >>> On 5 December 2011 18:04, Richard Guenther <richard.guent...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Michael Zolotukhin >>>> <michael.v.zolotuk...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> I'd just duplicate the tests you want to change to a larger array >>>>>> size and change those duplicates accordingly, leaving the original >>>>>> tests alone. >>>>> Richard, I made the tests this way - please check them in the attached >>>>> patch (it happened to be quite big). >>>> >>>> Works for me. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Richard. >>>> >>>>>> There is vect_multiple_sizes for such cases. >>>>> Ira, thanks! This flag would be useful to avoid fails on the original >>>>> tests when they are compiled with mavx/mavx2 - I'll prepare a patch >>>>> for this soon. >>>>> >>>>> On 5 December 2011 13:10, Richard Guenther <richard.guent...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Ira Rosen <i...@il.ibm.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org wrote on 05/12/2011 10:39:07 AM: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From: Michael Zolotukhin <michael.v.zolotuk...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> To: Richard Guenther <richard.guent...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, izamya...@gmail.com >>>>>>>> Date: 05/12/2011 10:39 AM >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Patch] Increase array sizes in vect-tests to enable >>>>>>>> 256-bit vectorization >>>>>>>> Sent by: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 5 December 2011 10:14, Michael Zolotukhin >>>>>>>> <michael.v.zolotuk...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> > Ok, will several tests with short arrays be enough for that or should >>>>>>>> > we keep all the original tests plus new ones with longer arrays? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> BTW, there is another problem with current tests with short arrays - >>>>>>>> scans are expecting specific number of some diagnostic messages like >>>>>>>> "not vectorized: unsupported unaligned store", and that number would >>>>>>>> be different if several vector-lengths are available - so we'll have >>>>>>>> fails in those tests. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is vect_multiple_sizes for such cases. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd just duplicate the tests you want to change to a larger array >>>>>> size and change those duplicates accordingly, leaving the original >>>>>> tests alone. >>>>>> >>>>>> Richard. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> --- >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Michael V. Zolotukhin, >>>>> Software Engineer >>>>> Intel Corporation. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> --- >>> Best regards, >>> Michael V. Zolotukhin, >>> Software Engineer >>> Intel Corporation. > > -- > --- > Best regards, > Michael V. Zolotukhin, > Software Engineer > Intel Corporation.
