on 2024/4/29 14:28, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Apr 28, 2024, "Kewen.Lin" <li...@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > >> Nit: Maybe add a prefix "testsuite: ". > > ACK > >>> >>> From: Kewen Lin <li...@linux.ibm.com> > >> Thanks, you can just drop this. :) > > I've turned it into Co-Authored-By, since you insist. > > But unfortunately with the patch it still fails when testing for > -mcpu=power7 on ppc64le-linux-gnu: it does vectorize the loop with 13 > iterations. We need 16 iterations, as in an earlier version of this > test, for it to pass for -mcpu=power7, but then it doesn't pass for > -mcpu=power6. > > It looks like we're going to have to adjust the expectations. >
I had a look at the failure, it's due to that "vect_no_align" is evaluated as true unexpectedly. "selector_expression: ` vect_no_align || {! vector_alignment_reachable} ' 1" Currently powerpc* checks check_p8vector_hw_available, ppc64le-linux-gnu has at least Power8 support (that is testing machine supports p8vector run), so it concludes vect_no_align is true. proc check_effective_target_vect_no_align { } { return [check_cached_effective_target_indexed vect_no_align { expr { [istarget mipsisa64*-*-*] || [istarget mips-sde-elf] || [istarget sparc*-*-*] || [istarget ia64-*-*] || [check_effective_target_arm_vect_no_misalign] || ([istarget powerpc*-*-*] && [check_p8vector_hw_available]) I'll fix this in PR113535 which was filed previously for visiting powerpc specific check in these vect* effective targets. If the testing just goes with native cpu type, this issue will become invisible. I think you can still push the patch as the testing just exposes another issue. BR, Kewen