Re: [PATCH] testsuite: Robustify aarch64/simd tests against more aggressive DCE

2022-03-01 Thread Marc Poulhies via Gcc-patches
Hi, > Sorry, just realised I'd never replied to this. No worries! I also took a very long time to reply, sorry. > The problem is that we only enforce lane bounds via calls to > __builtin_aarch64_im_lane_boundsi. In previous releases, the check > only happend at RTL expansion time, so the check

Re: [PATCH] testsuite: Robustify aarch64/simd tests against more aggressive DCE

2022-02-05 Thread Andrew Pinski via Gcc-patches
On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 7:34 PM Andrew Pinski wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 3:21 AM Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches > wrote: > > > > Sorry, just realised I'd never replied to this. > > > > Marc Poulhies writes: > > > Eric Botcazou writes: > > >>> The new variables seem to be unused, so I

Re: [PATCH] testsuite: Robustify aarch64/simd tests against more aggressive DCE

2022-02-04 Thread Andrew Pinski via Gcc-patches
On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 3:21 AM Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches wrote: > > Sorry, just realised I'd never replied to this. > > Marc Poulhies writes: > > Eric Botcazou writes: > >>> The new variables seem to be unused, so I think slightly stronger > >>> DCE could remove the calls even after the

Re: [PATCH] testsuite: Robustify aarch64/simd tests against more aggressive DCE

2022-02-04 Thread Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches
Sorry, just realised I'd never replied to this. Marc Poulhies writes: > Eric Botcazou writes: >>> The new variables seem to be unused, so I think slightly stronger >>> DCE could remove the calls even after the patch. Perhaps the containing >>> functions should take an int32x4_t *ptr or

Re: [PATCH] testsuite: Robustify aarch64/simd tests against more aggressive DCE

2022-01-14 Thread Marc Poulhies via Gcc-patches
Eric Botcazou writes: >> The new variables seem to be unused, so I think slightly stronger >> DCE could remove the calls even after the patch. Perhaps the containing >> functions should take an int32x4_t *ptr or something, with the calls >> assigning to different ptr[] indices. > > We run a

Re: [PATCH] testsuite: Robustify aarch64/simd tests against more aggressive DCE

2021-12-16 Thread Eric Botcazou via Gcc-patches
> The calls should still be diagnosed as incorrect, even if we don't > code-generate them. The fact that we don't do that is a known bug > (in aarch64 code). OK, thanks for the explanation. > The new variables seem to be unused, so I think slightly stronger > DCE could remove the calls even

Re: [PATCH] testsuite: Robustify aarch64/simd tests against more aggressive DCE

2021-12-15 Thread Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches
ndices_1.c: > Likewise. > * gcc.target/aarch64/simd/vqrdmulhq_laneq_s16_indices_1.c: > Likewise. > * gcc.target/aarch64/simd/vqrdmulhq_laneq_s32_indices_1.c: > Likewise. > * gcc.target/aarch64/simd/vqrdmulhs_lane_s32_indices_1.c: > Likew

[PATCH] testsuite: Robustify aarch64/simd tests against more aggressive DCE

2021-12-13 Thread Marc Poulhiès via Gcc-patches
ff7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?Marc=20Poulhi=C3=A8s?= Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2021 14:11:00 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] testsuite: Robustify aarch64/simd tests against more aggressive DCE This patch simply adds a LHS to some builtin calls to make sure DCE does not remove them at -O0. gcc/testsu