On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 5:27 PM Martin Liška <mli...@suse.cz> wrote:
>
> On 10/26/21 10:13, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 8:49 AM Martin Liška <mli...@suse.cz> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 10/18/21 12:08, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>> Can you please use a subdirectory for the sources, a "toplevel"
> >>> license.txt doesn't make much sense. You can simply amend
> >>> vect.exp to process tsvc/*.c as well as sources so no need for an
> >>> extra .exp file.
> >>
> >> Sure, it's a good idea and I've done that.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Is the license recognized as
> >>> compatible to the GPL as far as source distribution is concerned?
> >>
> >> Yes: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NCSA
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Did you test the testcases on any non-x86 target? (power/aarch64/arm)
> >>
> >> Yes, I run the tests also on ppc64le-linux-gnu and aarch64-linux-gnu.
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >
>
> Hey.
>
> > The overall setup looks fine to me. There are quite some testcases
> > where there are no dg-final directives, some indicate in comments
> > that we do not expect vectorization - for those do we want to
> > add scan-tree-dump-not "loop vectorized" or so to make that clear?
>
> In the updated version of the patch I added:
> /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-not "vectorized \[1-9\] loops" "vect" } } */
>
> > For others do we want to add XFAILs so we'll notice when we improve
> > on TSVC?
>
> What type of XFAILs do you mean?
Like
/* { dg-final { scann-tree-dump "vectorized 1 loops" "vect" { xfail
*-*-* } } } */
when the testcase looks for vectorization but we don't do that (yet).
For s1113 for example you added a scan-tree-dump-not but the comment
suggests we'd expect vectorization.
> > It looks like for example s124 is looking for IVOPTs rather
> > than vectorization? There are testcases exercising float compares
> > (s124 is an example), vectorizing those likely requires a subset
> > of fast-math flags to allow if-conversion and masking, plus masking
> > is not available on all targets. Is the intent to adjust testcase options
> > accordingly?
>
> No, this is out of my scope, it has already taken me some time...
OK.
> >
> > That said, I wonder whether it makes sense to initially only add
> > the parts having dg-final directives (that PASS or XFAIL), just
> > adding testcases for testing compile looks superfluous.
> >
> > All of the testcases are dg-do compile, but vectorizer testcases
> > ideally would come with runtime verification. I assume the
> > original TSVC provides this and as you include tscv.h in all
> > tests I suppose including a runtime harness would be possible, no?
>
> All right, I'm adding also run-time checking. It took me some time making
> array initialization for all tests independent. Plus I reduced number of
> iterations to 1/10 of the origin. That makes tests quite fast.
>
> What do you think about it now?
It looks nice now, but as said above some of the scan-tree-dump-not
should probably be xfailed scan-tree-dump, I was suggesting the
-not for the cases where vectorizing would be semantically wrong.
So I'd say OK with that change.
Thanks,
Richard.
> Martin
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Richard.
> >
> >> Thanks,
> >> Martin
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Richard.
