On 2021-08-16 09:33, Bin.Cheng wrote:
On Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 10:42 AM guojiufu <guoji...@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
...
>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr101145.inc >> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr101145.inc >> new file mode 100644 >> index 00000000000..6eed3fa8aca >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr101145.inc >> @@ -0,0 +1,63 @@ >> +TYPE __attribute__ ((noinline)) >> +foo_sign (int *__restrict__ a, int *__restrict__ b, TYPE l, TYPE n) >> +{ >> + for (l = L_BASE; n < l; l += C) >> + *a++ = *b++ + 1; >> + return l; >> +} >> + >> +TYPE __attribute__ ((noinline)) >> +bar_sign (int *__restrict__ a, int *__restrict__ b, TYPE l, TYPE n) >> +{ >> + for (l = L_BASE_DOWN; l < n; l -= C)I noticed that both L_BASE and L_BASE_DOWN are defined as l, which makes this test a bit confusing. Could you clean the use of l, for example, by using an auto var for the loop index invariable? Otherwise the patch looks good to me. Thanks very much for the work.
Hi, Sorry for bothering you here. I feel this would be an approval (with the comment) already :) With the change code to make it a little clear as: TYPE i; for (i = l; n < i; i += C) it may be ok to commit the patch to the trunk, right? BR, Jiufu
Thanks, bin>> + *a++ = *b++ + 1; >> + return l; >> +} >> + >> +int __attribute__ ((noinline)) neq (int a, int b) { return a != b; } >> + >> +int a[1000], b[1000]; >> +int fail; >> + >> +int
...
>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr101145_1.c >> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr101145_1.c >> new file mode 100644 >> index 00000000000..94f6b99b893 >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr101145_1.c >> @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ >> +/* { dg-require-effective-target vect_int } */ >> +/* { dg-options "-O3 -fdump-tree-vect-details" } */ >> +#define TYPE signed char >> +#define MIN -128 >> +#define MAX 127 >> +#define N_BASE (MAX - 32) >> +#define N_BASE_DOWN (MIN + 32) >> + >> +#define C 3 >> +#define L_BASE l >> +#define L_BASE_DOWN l >> +
