On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Michael Zolotukhin <michael.v.zolotuk...@gmail.com> wrote: >> What do you mean no tests require it? For instance, all of the ones >> that currently pass with with vect_perm? > Current implementation of vect_perm doesn't check for SSSE3 - so any > x86 target is supposed to support permutation. > >> Just leave vect_perm alone for now. That may not be absolutely >> correct either, but it's the good temporary solution that involves >> the minimal amount of churn. > Ok, those were just attempts to adjust dg-scans in slp-perm-9.c, in > which one more loop was vectorized when compiled with -mavx2. In fact, > just SSSE3 isn't enough for vectorization of this loop - it seems that > vector size also matters, so I undid changes in vect_perm and just add > a vect-size check to the test - could you please check if the changes > are ok?
It looks to me that the patch introduced some XFAILs on 32bit target [1]: XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/vect-multitypes-1.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of access forced using peeling" 2 XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/vect-multitypes-1.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 4 XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/vect-peel-3.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 1 XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/vect-peel-3.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of access forced using peeling" 1 XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/vect-multitypes-1.c -flto scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of access forced using peeling" 2 XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/vect-multitypes-1.c -flto scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 4 XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/vect-peel-3.c -flto scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 1 XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/vect-peel-3.c -flto scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of access forced using peeling" 1 XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/no-section-anchors-vect-69.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of access forced using peeling" 2 [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-12/msg02220.html Uros.
