On 7/23/20 2:18 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 1:14 PM Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
<gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
On 7/22/20 2:23 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
Hi Martin,
I have committed this change in r11-2231 after Jeff approved it
off list last Thursday.
the new gcc.target/i386/memcpy-pr95886.c test FAILs on 32-bit x86
(i386-pc-solaris2.11):
+FAIL: gcc.target/i386/memcpy-pr95886.c scan-rtl-dump-times expand "const_int
1976943448883713" 1
+FAIL: gcc.target/i386/memcpy-pr95886.c scan-rtl-dump-times expand "const_int
576467370915332609" 1
+FAIL: gcc.target/i386/memcpy-pr95886.c scan-rtl-dump-times expand "const_int
578431098682540545" 1
+FAIL: gcc.target/i386/memcpy-pr95886.c scan-rtl-dump-times expand "const_int
578437695685198337" 1
+FAIL: gcc.target/i386/memcpy-pr95886.c scan-rtl-dump-times expand "const_int
578437695685198337" 1
+FAIL: gcc.target/i386/memcpy-pr95886.c scan-rtl-dump-times expand "const_int
578437695752110593" 1
+FAIL: gcc.target/i386/memcpy-pr95886.c scan-rtl-dump-times expand "const_int
578437695752306689" 1
+FAIL: gcc.target/i386/memcpy-pr95886.c scan-rtl-dump-times expand "const_int
578437695752307200" 1
+FAIL: gcc.target/i386/memcpy-pr95886.c scan-rtl-dump-times expand "const_int
578437695752307201" 2
Thanks for letting me know. The test looks for patterns that are
apparently LP64-specific so I restricted it to just that data model.
Shouldn't it also work for x32?
I would expect the optimization to work on any target that does
the piecemeal copy, including x32. But you probably meant if
the test should pass as is on x32. Possibly yes, but I didn't
check.
A better test would exercise the solution at least on all three
i386 targets. It could probably be done fairly simply by reducing
the sizes of the arrays, or by using the large arrays only on LP64
or whatever makes the difference and figuring out the right magic
target selector to use in the dg- directives.
Martin
