> On 18 November 2014 10:14, David Sherwood <david.sherw...@arm.com> wrote: > > Hi Christophe, > > > > Ah sorry. My mistake - it fixes this in bugzilla: > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59810 > > I did look at that PR, but since it has no testcase attached, I was unsure. > And I am still not :-) > PR 59810 is "[AArch64] LDn/STn implementations are not ABI-conformant > for bigendian." > but the advsimd-intrinsics/vldX.c and vldX_lane.c now PASS with Alan's > patches on aarch64_be, so I thought Alan's patches solve PR59810. > > What am I missing?
Hi Christophe, I think probably this is our fault for making our lives way too difficult and artificially splitting all these patches up. :) Alan's patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-10/msg00952.html fixes some issues on aarch64_be, but also causes regressions. For example, ==== Tests that now fail, but worked before: aarch64_be-elf-aem: gcc.dg/vect/slp-perm-8.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects execution test aarch64_be-elf-aem: gcc.dg/vect/slp-perm-8.c execution test aarch64_be-elf-aem: gcc.dg/vect/vect-over-widen-1-big-array.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects execution test ... Tests that now work, but didn't before: aarch64_be-elf-aem: gcc.dg/vect/fast-math-vect-complex-3.c execution test aarch64_be-elf-aem: gcc.dg/vect/if-cvt-stores-vect-ifcvt-18.c execution test aarch64_be-elf-aem: gcc.dg/vect/no-scevccp-outer-10a.c execution test ... ==== His patch is only half of the story and must be applied at the same time as the "[AArch64] [BE] [1/2] Make large opaque integer modes endianness-safe." patch. With both patches applied the result looks much healthier: ==== # Comparing 1 common sum files ## /bin/sh ./src/gcc/contrib/compare_tests /tmp/gxx-sum1.10051 /tmp/gxx-sum2.10051 Tests that now work, but didn't before: aarch64_be-elf-aem: gcc.dg/torture/pr52028.c -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer execution test aarch64_be-elf-aem: gcc.dg/torture/pr52028.c -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-all-loops -finline-functions execution test aarch64_be-elf-aem: gcc.dg/torture/pr52028.c -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops execution test ... ==== with no new regressions. After applying both patches the aarch64_be gcc testsuite is on a parity with the aarch64 testsuite. Furthermore, after applying both of these patches: "[AArch64] [BE] [1/2] Make large opaque integer modes endianness-safe" "[AArch64] [BE] Fix vector load/stores to not use ld1/st1" it then becomes safe for us to remove the CCMC macro, which is the cause of unnecessary spills to the stack for certain auto-vectorised code. So really I suppose when I posted my second patch "[AArch64] [BE] [2/2] Make large opaque integer modes endianness-safe" I should have really just called this "[AArch64] [BE] Remove CCMC for aarch64" in order to make it clear exactly what the purpose of these patches is. Kind Regards, David Sherwood.