On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 11:16 PM Antoni Boucher <boua...@zoho.com> wrote: > > Thanks for the review. > Does this mean I can commit it, assuming the output of compare_tests is > good? Yes. > > By the way, I wanted to mention that it was my first time playing with > the assembly generation, so I was not sure about my changes (even > though it makes the test case compile, I'm not sure it doesn't have any > unintended side effects): > It looked to me that the register qualifiers should be the same for > both AT&T and Intel syntaxes, but I'm might be wrong about this. Yes for the case in your patch, I think it's a typo. But there could be some difference for operand modifiers between AT&T and Intel syntaxes in some patterns. .i.e the use of mode attr <iptr>.
> > On Tue, 2022-06-28 at 14:22 +0800, Hongtao Liu wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 9:26 AM ~antoyo via Gcc-patches > > <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > > > > > Hi. > > > > > > This fixes the following bug: > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106095 > > The patch LGTM, thanks for handling this. > > > > > > It's the first time I work outside of the jit component, so please > > > tell > > > me if I forgot anything. > > > > > > Here are the results of running the test: > > > > > > === gcc Summary === > > > > > > # of expected passes 182481 > > > # of unexpected failures 91 > > > # of unexpected successes 20 > > > # of expected failures 1475 > > > # of unsupported tests 2535 > > > > > > === g++ Summary === > > > > > > # of expected passes 231596 > > > # of unexpected failures 1 > > > # of expected failures 2083 > > > # of unsupported tests 9948 > > > > > > === jit Summary === > > > > > > # of expected passes 14542 > > > # of unexpected failures 1 > > > > > > === libstdc++ Summary === > > > > > > # of expected passes 15538 > > > # of expected failures 95 > > > # of unsupported tests 653 > > > > > > === libgomp Summary === > > > > > > # of expected passes 5012 > > > # of expected failures 33 > > > # of unsupported tests 323 > > > > > > === libitm Summary === > > > > > > # of expected passes 44 > > > # of expected failures 3 > > > # of unsupported tests 1 > > > > > > === libatomic Summary === > > > > > > # of expected passes 54 > > > > > > It's the first time I run the whole testsuite, so I'm not sure if > > > those > > > failures are normal. I got more unexpected failures for the gcc > > > tests > > > than what is shown in https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc- > > > testresults/2022-June/764154.html. In any case, I get the same > > > failures > > > when running the testsuite on master. Perhaps my configure command > > > is > > > wrong? I used the following: > > You can use ./contrib/compare_tests to see if there's no failure or > > new pass. > > ./contrib/compara_tests is under gcc top directory. > > > > > > ../../gcc/configure --enable-host-shared --enable- > > > languages=c,jit,c++,lto --enable-checking=release > > > --prefix=(pwd)/../install > > > > > --enable-checking=release will give up some internal checks to > > increase the compilation speed, for the development trunk, it is > > better not to use release. > > > Thanks for the review. > > > > > > Antoni Boucher (1): > > > target: Fix asm generation for AVX builtins when using - > > > masm=intel > > > [PR106095] > > > > > > gcc/config/i386/sse.md | 10 ++--- > > > gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr106095.c | 47 > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 2 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr106095.c > > > > > > -- > > > 2.34.2 > > > > > > > -- BR, Hongtao
