On Tue, 7 Nov 2023, Juzhe-Zhong wrote:
> PR target/112420
OK
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> * gcc.dg/vect/pr65518.c: Fix check for RVV.
>
> ---
> gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr65518.c | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr65518.c
> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr65518.c
> index 3e5b986183c..189a65534f6 100644
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr65518.c
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr65518.c
> @@ -49,4 +49,6 @@ int main ()
> sub-optimal and causes memory explosion (even though the cost model
> should reject that in the end). */
>
> -/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "vectorized 0 loops in function" 2
> "vect" } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "vectorized 0 loops in function" 2
> "vect" { target {! riscv*-*-* } } } } */
> +/* We end up using gathers for the strided load on RISC-V which would be OK.
> */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "using gather/scatter for strided/grouped
> access" "vect" { target { riscv*-*-* } } } } */
>
--
Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de>
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH,
Frankenstrasse 146, 90461 Nuernberg, Germany;
GF: Ivo Totev, Andrew McDonald, Werner Knoblich; (HRB 36809, AG Nuernberg)
