On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 02:24:40 PST (-0800), Robin Dapp wrote:
I suggest specify -fno-schedule-insns to force tests assembler never
change for any scheduling model.
We already do that and that's the point - as I mentioned before, no
scheduling is worse than default scheduling here (for some
> I suggest specify -fno-schedule-insns to force tests assembler never
> change for any scheduling model.
We already do that and that's the point - as I mentioned before, no
scheduling is worse than default scheduling here (for some definition
of worse). The way to reduce the number of vsetvls
test expectancies with recent scheduler
change
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 15:53:19 PST (-0800), jeffreya...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On 2/27/24 15:56, 钟居哲 wrote:
>> >> I don't think it's that simple. On some uarchs vsetvls are nearly free
>>>>while on others they can be
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 15:53:19 PST (-0800), jeffreya...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/27/24 15:56, 钟居哲 wrote:
>> I don't think it's that simple. On some uarchs vsetvls are nearly free
while on others they can be fairly expensive. It's not clear (to me)
yet if one approach or the other is going to
On 2/27/24 15:56, 钟居哲 wrote:
>> I don't think it's that simple. On some uarchs vsetvls are nearly free
while on others they can be fairly expensive. It's not clear (to me)
yet if one approach or the other is going to be the more common.
That's uarch dependent which is not the stuff I am
: Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Update test expectancies with recent scheduler
change
On 2/26/24 18:21, juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote:
> If the scheduling model increases the vsetvls, we shouldn't set it as
> default scheduling model
I don't think it's that simple. On some uarchs vsetvls are near
On 2/26/24 18:21, juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote:
If the scheduling model increases the vsetvls, we shouldn't set it as
default scheduling model
I don't think it's that simple. On some uarchs vsetvls are nearly free
while on others they can be fairly expensive. It's not clear (to me)
yet if
If the scheduling model increases the vsetvls, we shouldn't set it as default
scheduling model
juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
From: Robin Dapp
Date: 2024-02-26 21:29
To: Edwin Lu; gcc-patches
CC: rdapp.gcc; gnu-toolchain; pan2.li; juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Update test
On 2/24/24 00:10, Edwin Lu wrote:
> Given the recent change with adding the scheduler pipeline descriptions,
> many scan-dump failures emerged. Relax the expected assembler output
> conditions on the affected tests to reduce noise.
I'm not entirely sure yet about relaxing the scans like this.
Given the recent change with adding the scheduler pipeline descriptions,
many scan-dump failures emerged. Relax the expected assembler output
conditions on the affected tests to reduce noise.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/riscv/rvv/dynamic-lmul4-6.c: Bound testcase
10 matches
Mail list logo
