On Wed, 5 Aug 2015, James Greenhalgh wrote: > On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 12:09:35PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Wed, 5 Aug 2015, Andrew Pinski wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 3:16 AM, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 5 Aug 2015, Andreas Schwab wrote: > > > > > > > >> Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> writes: > > > >> > > > >> > * gimple-fold.c (gimple_fold_stmt_to_constant_1): Canonicalize > > > >> > bool compares on RHS. > > > >> > * match.pd: Add X ==/!= !X is false/true pattern. > > > >> > > > >> ERROR in VTST/VTSTQ > > > >> (/opt/gcc/gcc-20150805/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/advsimd-intrinsics/vtst.c > > > >> line 97 in buffer 'expected_signed') at type uint8x8 index 1: got 0x1 > > > >> != 0xff (signed input) > > > >> FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/advsimd-intrinsics/vtst.c -O1 execution > > > >> test > > > >> FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/simd/int_comparisons_1.c scan-assembler-times > > > >> [ \t]cmtst[ \t]+v[0-9]+.[0-9]+[bshd],[ \t]*v[0-9]+.[0-9]+[bshd],[ > > > >> \t]+v[0-9]+.[0-9]+[bshd] 14 > > > >> FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/simd/int_comparisons_1.c scan-assembler-times > > > >> [ \t]cmtst[ \t]+d[0-9]+,[ \t]*d[0-9]+,[ \t]+d[0-9]+ 4 > > > >> FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/simd/int_comparisons_2.c execution test > > > >> FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/singleton_intrinsics_1.c scan-assembler-times > > > >> \\tcmtst\\td[0-9]+, d[0-9]+, d[0-9]+ 2 > > > > > > > > Ick - somebody will have to come up with a reduced testcase for one of > > > > this (best an execute fail). Reduced to one failing case so I can > > > > investigate with a cross compiler. > > > > > > > > Eventually smells like a aarch64 vector specific issue or a latent > > > > issue with the truth_valued_p predicate for vector types. > > > > > > Or constant_boolean_node is not returning {-1,-1,-1,-1} for true vectors. > > > > It does. > > You could try with the attached (execute) testcase. > > Output for me (x86_64/AArch64 trunk compiler) is: > > Expected: 0000ffffffffff00 Got: 00007f80807f8000 > > Those folded values look suspicious! We fold as so: > > arg1_2 = { -128, -1, 127, -122, -128, -1, 0, 118 }; > arg2_3 = { 127, -128, 127, -128, -1, 127, 127, 0 }; > > Visiting statement: > _5 = arg1_2 & arg2_3; > which is likely CONSTANT > Match-and-simplified arg1_2 & arg2_3 to { 0, -128, 127, -128, -128, 127, 0, 0 > } > Lattice value changed to CONSTANT { 0, -128, 127, -128, -128, 127, 0, 0 }. > Adding SSA edges to worklist. > interesting_ssa_edges: adding SSA use in _13 = > VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR<uint8x8_t>(_5); > marking stmt to be not simulated again > > I'd have expected masks of "-1" in the true vector lanes rather than what > we end up with.
__extension__ static __inline uint8x8_t __attribute__ ((__always_inline__)) vtst_s8 (int8x8_t __a, int8x8_t __b) { return (uint8x8_t) ((__a & __b) != 0); } you expect that to be a truth and but it is a bitwise and. So IMHO it works "as expected". Does the backend actually generate a truth-and instruction for vtst_s8!? Anyway, trying a cross now. > Thanks, > James > > -- Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Dilip Upmanyu, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nuernberg)