[GCC13/GCC12 PATCH] Fix testcase failure.

Looks like -mprefer-vector-width=128 doesn't impact store_max/mov_max for GCC13/GCC12 branch, explicitly use -mmov-max=128, -mstore-max=128 for those testcases. Committed as an obvious fix. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: * gcc.target/i386/pieces-memcpy-10.c: Use -mmove-max=256 and -mst

[PATCH] Fix testcase for platform without gnu/stubs-x32.h

target maybe_x32 doesn't check if platform has gnu/stubs-x32.h, but it's included by stdint.h in the testcase. Adjust testcase: remove stdint.h, use 'typedef long long int64_t' instead. Commit as an obvious patch. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: PR target/113711 * gcc.target/i386/apx-nd

[PATCH] Fix testcase failure on many platforms which don't support vect_int_max.

After r14-7124-g6686e16fda4190, the testcase can be optimized to MAX_EXPR if the backends support that. So I adjust the testcase to scan for MAX_EXPR, but it failed many platforms which don't support that. As pinski mentioned, target vect_no_int_min_max is only available under vect directory, so fo

RE: [PATCH] fix testcase gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c

Hi Iain Iain Sandoe wrote: >Richard Sandiford wrote: >> "Qian, Jianhua" writes: >>> Hi Richard >>>  >>> I found that some instructions are using '#' before immediate value， >>> and others are not. For example >>> (define_insn "insv_imm" >>> [(set (zero_extract:GPI (match_operand:GPI 0 "registe

Re: [PATCH] fix testcase gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c

Richard Sandiford wrote: "Qian, Jianhua" writes: Hi Richard I found that some instructions are using '#' before immediate value， and others are not. For example (define_insn "insv_imm" [(set (zero_extract:GPI (match_operand:GPI 0 "register_operand" "+r") (const_int

Re: [PATCH] fix testcase gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c

I've a slight preference for having the “#”. Thanks, Richard > > Regards > Qian > > -Original Message- > From: Richard Sandiford > Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 6:09 PM > To: Qian, Jianhua/钱 建华 > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix

RE: [PATCH] fix testcase gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c

lsl %1" [(set_attr "type" "mov_imm")] ) Are there any standards for this? Regards Qian -Original Message- From: Richard Sandiford Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 6:09 PM To: Qian, Jianhua/钱 建华 Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix testcase gcc.ta

Re: [PATCH] fix testcase gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c

Qian Jianhua writes: > There are three failures in gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c. > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c scan-assembler bfi\tx[0-9]+, x[0-9]+, 0, 8 > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c scan-assembler bfi\tx[0-9]+, x[0-9]+, 16, 5 > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c scan-assembler movk\

[PATCH] fix testcase gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c

There are three failures in gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c. FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c scan-assembler bfi\tx[0-9]+, x[0-9]+, 0, 8 FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c scan-assembler bfi\tx[0-9]+, x[0-9]+, 16, 5 FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c scan-assembler movk\tx[0-9]+, 0x1d6b, lsl 32 This

Re: [C++ PATCH] fix testcase

Hi Nathan, > Jason's recent patch > 2019-12-17 Jason Merrill > > PR c++/79592 - missing explanation of invalid constexpr. > > Caused ubsan/vptr-4.C to emit an additional, correct, > diagnostic. Committing this to update the testcase. this is PR testsuite/92991. Rainer -- -

[C++ PATCH] fix testcase

Jason's recent patch 2019-12-17 Jason Merrill PR c++/79592 - missing explanation of invalid constexpr. Caused ubsan/vptr-4.C to emit an additional, correct, diagnostic. Committing this to update the testcase. nathan -- Nathan Sidwell 2020-01-06 Nathan Sidwell PR c++/79592 * g

Re: [PATCH] Fix testcase to not use vtable verification with LTO

On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 6:13 PM Caroline Tice via gcc-patches wrote: > > Yesterday I submitted a patch that disallows using vtable verfication > with LTO (they don't work > properly together), but I missed fixing the flags for one testcase. > This patch fixes that omission. > > Testing: Tescase pas

[PATCH] Fix testcase to not use vtable verification with LTO

Yesterday I submitted a patch that disallows using vtable verfication with LTO (they don't work properly together), but I missed fixing the flags for one testcase. This patch fixes that omission. Testing: Tescase passes with this change. Is this ok to commit? -- Caroline cmt...@google.com Chang

[PATCH] Fix testcase

Committed. 2018-10-22 Richard Biener * gcc.dg/graphite/scop-4.c: Avoid out-of-bound access. Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/graphite/scop-4.c === --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/graphite/scop-4.c (revision 265315) +++ gcc/tes

Re: [PATCH] Fix testcase for PR c/78304

On Tue, 2017-01-17 at 10:45 +0100, Christophe Lyon wrote: > On 16 January 2017 at 19:50, David Malcolm > wrote: > > On Mon, 2017-01-16 at 13:31 +0100, Rainer Orth wrote: > > > Hi Christophe, > > > > > > > > Successfully bootstrapped®rtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu; > > > > > adds 34 PASS results t

Re: [PATCH] Fix testcase for PR c/78304

On 16 January 2017 at 19:50, David Malcolm wrote: > On Mon, 2017-01-16 at 13:31 +0100, Rainer Orth wrote: >> Hi Christophe, >> >> > > Successfully bootstrapped®rtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu; >> > > adds 34 PASS results to gcc.sum. >> > > >> > These 2 tests fail on arm: >> > >> > gcc.dg/format/p

[PATCH] Fix testcase for PR c/78304

On Mon, 2017-01-16 at 13:31 +0100, Rainer Orth wrote: > Hi Christophe, > > > > Successfully bootstrapped®rtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu; > > > adds 34 PASS results to gcc.sum. > > > > > These 2 tests fail on arm: > > > > gcc.dg/format/pr78304.c (test for warnings, line 9) > > gcc.dg/form

[PATCH] Fix testcase from PR48885

I am currently testing the following patch enabling us to optimize void test (int *a, int *b, int * restrict v) { *a = *v; *b = *v; } there is a simple case we can handle without implementing ??? from visit_loadstore. Richard. 2015-09-23 Richard Biener PR tree-optim