Re: Lots of FAILs in gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/*

On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 8:33 PM Maxim Blinov via Gcc wrote: > > I see, thanks for clarifying, that makes sense. > > In that case, what about doing the inverse? I mean, are there unique > patches in the vendor branch, and would it be useful to try to > upstream them into master? My motivation is to

Re: Re: Lots of FAILs in gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/*

I am sure that Master GCC has much better VSETVL strategy than GCC-13. And recent evaluation on our internal hardware, shows that master GCC overall is worse than previous RVV GCC I open souce in: https://github.com/riscv-collab/riscv-gcc/tree/riscv-gcc-rvv-next (rvv-next) It's odd, since I thin

Re: Lots of FAILs in gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/*

I see, thanks for clarifying, that makes sense. In that case, what about doing the inverse? I mean, are there unique patches in the vendor branch, and would it be useful to try to upstream them into master? My motivation is to get the best autovectorized code for RISC-V. I had a go at building th

Re: Checks that autotools generated files were re-generated correctly

Martin Jambor writes: > [...] I have inherited Martin Liška's buildbot script that checks > that all sorts of autotools generated files, mainly configure scripts, > were re-generated correctly when appropriate. [...] The gccadmin account on sourceware already does some daily routine git commit

Re: Article suggestion (note for admin)

We have many STDs. stdio stdlib libstdc++ On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 7:57 AM Dwayne Jacobs < d.jac...@backgroundchecksmailing.org> wrote: > Hi GCC Team, > > I wanted to follow up once more regarding the latest STD statistics in the > US. > > As I mentioned previously, I believe the data could be a u

Article suggestion (note for admin)

Hi GCC Team, I wanted to follow up once more regarding the latest STD statistics in the US. As I mentioned previously, I believe the data could be a useful resource for your audience. You can find the full report here: https://backgroundchecks.org/which-states-have-the-most-stds.html If you'r

Re: Lots of FAILs in gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/*

On 11/7/23 05:50, Maxim Blinov wrote: Hi all, I can see about 500 failing tests on the vendors/riscv/gcc-13-with-riscv-opts, a mostly-full list at the bottom of this email. It's mostly test cases scraping for vector instructions. Correct. There are generic vectorizer changes that would need

Re: Checks that autotools generated files were re-generated correctly

On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 at 15:36, Martin Jambor wrote: > > Hello, > > On Tue, Nov 07 2023, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: > n>> On Nov 6, 2023, at 21:19, Christophe Lyon > wrote: > >> > >> Hi! > >> > >> On Mon, 6 Nov 2023 at 18:05, Martin Jambor wrote: > >>> > >>> Hello, > >>> > >>> I have inherited Martin L

Re: Checks that autotools generated files were re-generated correctly

Hello, On Tue, Nov 07 2023, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: n>> On Nov 6, 2023, at 21:19, Christophe Lyon wrote: >> >> Hi! >> >> On Mon, 6 Nov 2023 at 18:05, Martin Jambor wrote: >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> I have inherited Martin Liška's buildbot script that checks that all >>> sorts of autotools generat

Re: Checks that autotools generated files were re-generated correctly

On 11/7/23 02:38, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: >> On Nov 6, 2023, at 21:19, Christophe Lyon >> wrote: >> >> Hi! >> >> On Mon, 6 Nov 2023 at 18:05, Martin Jambor >> wrote: >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> I have inherited Martin Liška's buildbot script that checks that >>> all sorts of autotools generated file

Lots of FAILs in gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/*

Hi all, I can see about 500 failing tests on the vendors/riscv/gcc-13-with-riscv-opts, a mostly-full list at the bottom of this email. It's mostly test cases scraping for vector instructions. However, these tests all pass on master. Presumably the vendor branch failures can all be fixed by cherry