On Tue, 2024-01-16 at 12:58 +0800, Xi Ruoyao wrote: > On Tue, 2024-01-16 at 10:57 +0800, chenxiaolong wrote: > > 在 2024-01-15一的 15:50 +0800，Xi Ruoyao写道： > > > On Mon, 2024-01-15 at 15:10 +0800, chenxiaolong wrote: > > > > At 14:42 +0800 on the first day of 2024-01-15, Xi Ruoyao wrote： > > > > > On Mon, 2024-01-15 at 14:32 +0800, YunQiang Su wrote: > > > > > > Xi Ruoyao <xry...@xry111.site> wrote at 12:11pm on Monday, > > > > > > January > > > > > > 15, 2024： > > > > > > > On Mon, 2024-01-15 at 09:29 +0800, chenxiaolong wrote: > > > > > > > > At 21:13 +0800 on Saturday, 2024-01-13, Xi Ruoyao wrote： > > > > > > > > > At 15:28 +0800 on Saturday 2024-01-13, chenxiaolong > > > > > > > > > wrote： > > > > > > > > > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * gcc.dg/pr104992.c: Added additional "-mlsx" > > > > > > > > > > compilation > > > > > > > > > > options. > > > > > > > > > > * gcc.dg/signbit-2.c: Dito. > > > > > > > > > > * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/scev-16.c: Dito. > > > > > > > > > > * gfortran.dg/graphite/vect-pr40979.f90: Dito. > > > > > > > > > > * gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-mgrid-resid.f: Dito. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't feel it right about the changes to pr104992.c and > > > > > > > > > scev-16.c > > > > > > > > > because no other architectures add special options > > > > > > > > > there. > > > > > > > > > Why are we > > > > > > > > > so special? > > > > > > > > Because on the LoongArch architecture, GCC requires the > > > > > > > > addition of > > > > > > > > vectorization options in order to generate vector code. Use > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > check_effective_target_vect_cmdline_needed command in the > > > > > > > > lib/target- > > > > > > > > supports.exp file to set whether the command line option is > > > > > > > > needed to > > > > > > > > enable vectorizations. For example, ia64,x86,aarch64, and > > > > > > > > riscv > > > > > > > > architectures, vectorization is enabled by default. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But no. The default baseline of 32-bit x86 is i686, which is > > > > > > > basically > > > > > > > a Pentium III launched in 1999 without any vector > > > > > > > instructions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We are still missing something here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a line > > > > > > #define vector > > > > > > __attribute__((vector_size(4*sizeof(int)))) > > > > > > I guess it is the syntax needs to be supported. > > > > > > > > > > This is always supported. If the target does not have vector > > > > > instructions GCC will just expand vector arithmetic as a loop. > > > > > > > > > > Maybe we should just move this test into gcc.dg/vect where the > > > > > framework > > > > > automatically add options like -mlsx or -msse2? > > > > > > > > > > > > > The "-mlsx" option is turned on by default after vectorization > > > > testing > > > > is turned on. However, the use of dg-options in some files resets > > > > the > > > > compilation options for testing this file. Therefore, to detect > > > > vectorization on LoongArch, it is necessary to add an additional "- > > > > mlsx" option. > > > > > > Then it should use dg-additional-options instead of dg-options. > > > > > According to your advice, I have tried the following two ways: > > > > (1)Replace dg-options directly with dg-additional-options. The "-ansi- > > pedantic-errors" set in the dg.exp file is used, and the following > > problems occur: > > > > gcc.dg/pr104992.c:ISO C90 does not support complex types. > > gcc.dg/tree-ssa/scev-16.c:‘for’ loop initial declarations are only > > allowed in C99 or C11 mode > > > > Note: The ISO required by the program is inconsistent with the default > > standard, resulting in an error. > > We can add -std=c11 into dg-additional-options as well. > > > (2)Move pr104992.c and scev-16.c to the gcc.dg/vect directory and > > replace dg-options with dg-additional-options. The problems are as > > follows: > > > > gcc.dg/vect/scev-16.c: Because there is no test rule starting with > > scev* in the vect.exp file, you need to add a new test rule or change > > the file name before the test can be performed. > > > > Summary: It is more appropriate to add the additional "-mlsx" option > > directly to the pr104992.c and scev-16.c files. This supports > > vectorization testing of the LoongArch architecture and does not > > modify the testing behavior of other architectures. > > No, "not modifying the other architectures" may not be a good thing in > some cases. > > There are only two possibilities here: > > (1) The test is broken for all architectures where vectorization needs > additional options. Then we should fix it for all the architectures. > > (2) The test is only broken on LoongArch, then on other architectures > some mechanism is already adding the proper options for vectorization. > Then we should implement the same mechanism for LoongArch. > > For either case adding -mlsx only for LoongArch is only papering over > the real issue. > > I'll run these tests on some other architectures and see what's > happening...
Alright, now to me using vect_* out of vect directories is simply wrong. Instead of fixing up all the tests one by one, target by target, we should just stop this nonsense. Spreading target-specific vectorization options everywhere is pretty unmaintainable. https://gcc.gnu.org/PR113418 -- Xi Ruoyao <xry...@xry111.site> School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University
