On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 08:14:31PM +0100, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-06-12 at 17:36 +0100, Vidya Praveen wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 01:34:18PM +0100, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2015-04-30 at 18:26 +0800, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 9:26 PM, Bill Schmidt
> > > > <wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 2015-04-27 at 14:23 +0800, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> > > > >> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 1:42 AM, Bill Schmidt
> > > > >> <wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-33.c
> > > > >> > ===================================================================
> > > > >> > --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-33.c (revision 221118)
> > > > >> > +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-33.c (working copy)
> > > > >> > @@ -36,9 +36,10 @@ int main (void)
> > > > >> > return main1 ();
> > > > >> > }
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > +/* vect_hw_misalign && { ! vect64 } */
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "vectorized 1 loops" 1
> > > > >> > "vect" } } */
> > > > >> > -/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "Vectorizing an unaligned access"
> > > > >> > "vect" { target { vect_hw_misalign && { {! vect64} ||
> > > > >> > vect_multiple_sizes } } } } } */
> > > > >> > +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "Vectorizing an unaligned access"
> > > > >> > "vect" { target { { { ! powerpc*-*-* } && vect_hw_misalign } && {
> > > > >> > { ! vect64 } || vect_multiple_sizes } } } } } */
> > > > >> > /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "Alignment of access forced using
> > > > >> > peeling" "vect" { target { vector_alignment_reachable && { vect64
> > > > >> > && {! vect_multiple_sizes} } } } } } */
> > > > >> > /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced
> > > > >> > using versioning" 1 "vect" { target { { {!
> > > > >> > vector_alignment_reachable} || {! vect64} } && {!
> > > > >> > vect_hw_misalign} } } } } */
> > > > >> > /* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "vect" } } */
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Hi Bill,
> > > > >> With this change, the test case is skipped on aarch64 now. Since it
> > > > >> passed before, Is it expected to act like this on 64bit platforms?
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Bin,
> > > > >
> > > > > No, that's a mistake on my part -- thanks for the report! That first
> > > > > added line was not intended to be part of the patch:
> > > > >
> > > > > +/* vect_hw_misalign && { ! vect64 } */
> > > > >
> > > > > Please try removing that line and verify that the patch succeeds again
> > > > > for ARM. Assuming so, I'll prepare a patch to fix this.
> > > > >
> > > > > It looks like this mistake was introduced only in this particular
> > > > > test,
> > > > > but please let me know if you see any other anomalies.
> > > > Hi Bill,
> > > > I chased the wrong branch. The test disappeared on fsf-48 branch in
> > > > out build, rather than trunk. I guess it's not your patch's fault.
> > > > Will follow up and get back to you later.
> > > > Sorry for the inconvenience.
> > >
> > > OK, thanks for letting me know! There was still a bad line in this
> > > patch, although it was only introduced in 5.1 and trunk, so I guess that
> > > wasn't responsible in this case. Thanks for checking!
> >
> >
> > Hi Bill,
> >
> > In 4.8 branch, you have changed:
> >
> > -/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 0
> > "vect" } } */
> > +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 0
> > "vect" { target { ! vect_hw_misalign } } } } */
> >
> > Whereas your comment says:
> >
> > 2015-04-24 Bill Schmidt <wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >
> > Backport from mainline r222349
> > 2015-04-22 Bill Schmidt <wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >
> > PR target/65456
> > [...]
> > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-33.c: Exclude unaligned access test for
> > POWER8.
> > [...]
> >
> > There wasn't an unaligned access test in the first place. But if you wanted
> > to
> > introduce it and exclude it for POWER8 then it should've been:
> >
> > ... { { ! powerpc*-*-* } && vect_hw_misalign } ...
> >
> > like you have done for the trunk. At the moment, this change has made the
> > test
> > to be skipped for AArch64. It should've been skipped for x86_64-*-* and
> > i*86-*-*
> > as well.
> >
> > I believe it wasn't intended to be skipped so?
>
> Right, wasn't intended to be skipped. This test changed substantially
> between 4.8 and 4.9, so when I did the backport I tried (and failed) to
> adjust it properly.
>
> Because the sense of the test has been reversed, I believe the correct
> change is
>
> /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 0
> "vect" { target { { ! powerpc*-*-* } || { ! vect_hw_misalign } } } } } */
Makes sense. If I understand it right, it shouldn't vectorize for targets
(except powerpc) that support vector misalign access?
Regards
VP.
>
> I'll give that a quick test.
>
> Bill
>
> >
> > Regards
> > VP.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Bill
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > bin
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks very much!
> > > > >
> > > > > Bill
> > > > >>
> > > > >> PASS->NA: gcc.dg/vect/vect-33.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects
> > > > >> scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 0
> > > > >> PASS->NA: gcc.dg/vect/vect-33.c scan-tree-dump-times vect
> > > > >> "Vectorizing
> > > > >> an unaligned access" 0
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > >> bin
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
