> Just to make sure I understand. We're switching to a check that we've > got a branchless sequence, right? That seems like a good idea, > particularly when mated with the pre-existing test that we've got the > appropriate SAT IFN in the .optimized dump.
Yes, if hit the SAT IFN code-gen, there should be branchless, and for the Correctness of code-gen, we have run test to take care of it. Pan -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Law <jeffreya...@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2025 8:37 PM To: Li, Pan2 <pan2...@intel.com>; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Cc: juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai; kito.ch...@gmail.com; rdapp....@gmail.com; Chen, Ken <ken.c...@intel.com>; Liu, Hongtao <hongtao....@intel.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] RISC-V: Refine the scalar SAT_* test cases On 7/12/25 8:26 AM, pan2...@intel.com wrote: > From: Pan Li <pan2...@intel.com> > > Per previous discuss with Jeff, we don't do complicated > asm check like scalar saturation alu. It is somehow > not easy to maintain, as well as fragile. Thus, we > remove these function-body check, and introduce the > jmp label asm check instead.The code-gen of SAT_* > will never have a jmp, and the other run test will > make sure the correctness of SAT_* code-gen. > > The below test suites are passed for this patch series. > * The rv64gcv fully regression test. > > The below failed test cases are resolved: > FAIL: gcc.target/riscv/sat/sat_s_add_imm-2-i8.c -Oz > check-function-bodies sat_s_add_imm_int8_t_fmt_2_1 > FAIL: gcc.target/riscv/sat/sat_s_add_imm-2-i8.c -Os > check-function-bodies sat_s_add_imm_int8_t_fmt_2_1 > FAIL: gcc.target/riscv/sat/sat_s_add_imm-2-i8.c -O3 > check-function-bodies sat_s_add_imm_int8_t_fmt_2_1 > FAIL: gcc.target/riscv/sat/sat_s_add_imm-2-i8.c -Ofast > check-function-bodies sat_s_add_imm_int8_t_fmt_2_1 > FAIL: gcc.target/riscv/sat/sat_s_add_imm-2-i8.c -O2 > check-function-bodies sat_s_add_imm_int8_t_fmt_2_1 Just to make sure I understand. We're switching to a check that we've got a branchless sequence, right? That seems like a good idea, particularly when mated with the pre-existing test that we've got the appropriate SAT IFN in the .optimized dump. Thanks for taking care of this. While the changes aren't terribly complex, there's a *lot* of them. Jeff