Re: [PATCH, x86] Fix pblendv expand.

[Evgeny Stupachenko]

I've added the reproducer to the patch.

is it ok?

ChangeLog:

2014-12-10  Evgeny Stupachenko  <evstu...@gmail.com>

gcc/testsuite
        * gcc.target/i386/blend.c: New.

gcc/
        * config/i386/i386.c (expand_vec_perm_pblendv): Gen new rtx for
        expand_vec_perm_1 target.

diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
index eafc15a..5a914ad 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
@@ -47546,6 +47546,7 @@ expand_vec_perm_pblendv (struct expand_vec_perm_d *d)
     dcopy.op0 = dcopy.op1 = d->op1;
   else
     dcopy.op0 = dcopy.op1 = d->op0;
+  dcopy.target = gen_reg_rtx (vmode);
   dcopy.one_operand_p = true;

   for (i = 0; i < nelt; ++i)
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/blend.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/blend.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d03bdbb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/blend.c
@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+/* Test correctness of size 3 store groups permutation.  */
+/* { dg-do run } */
+/* { dg-options "-O3" } */
+
+#define N 50
+
+enum num3
+{
+  a, b, c
+};
+
+struct flags
+{
+  enum num3 f;
+  unsigned int c;
+  unsigned int p;
+};
+
+struct flagsN
+{
+  struct flags a[N];
+};
+
+void
+bar (int n, struct flagsN *ff)
+{
+  struct flagsN *fc;
+  for (fc = ff + 1; fc < (ff + n); fc++)
+    {
+      int i;
+      for (i = 0; i < N; ++i)
+       {
+         ff->a[i].f = 0;
+         ff->a[i].c = i;
+         ff->a[i].p = -1;
+       }
+      for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
+       {
+         int j;
+         for (j = 0; j < N - n; ++j)
+           {
+             fc->a[i + j].f = 0;
+             fc->a[i + j].c = j + i;
+             fc->a[i + j].p = -1;
+           }
+       }
+    }
+}
+
+struct flagsN q[2];
+
+int main()
+{
+  int i;
+  long long *rr = (long long *)q[0].a;
+  bar(2, q);
+  for (i = 0; i < N * 2; i += 2)
+    if (rr[i] == -1 && rr[i + 1] == -1)
+      return 1;
+  return 0;
+}



On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 7:38 PM, Evgeny Stupachenko <evstu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I mean that there are a lot of people tracking spec2006 stability and
> therefore the issue should be on track in future.
> And that I can create the test case, but it would be as big as several
> GCC functions.
> Will work on reducing the test case.
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Richard Henderson <r...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 12/09/2014 07:59 AM, Evgeny Stupachenko wrote:
>>> However patch is fixing spec2006 benchmark. Shouldn't that be enough
>>> for regression testing?
>>>
>>
>> No.  Spec is not free.
>>
>>
>> r~