[Bug testsuite/101528] [11 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/int_128bit-runnable.c fails after r11-8743

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101528

Richard Biener  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Known to fail||11.2.0
   Priority|P3  |P2

--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener  ---
is this still broken?

[Bug testsuite/101528] [11 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/int_128bit-runnable.c fails after r11-8743

[seurer at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101528

--- Comment #3 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yes, there were still failures in the latest test runs.

[Bug testsuite/101528] [11 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/int_128bit-runnable.c fails after r11-8743

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101528

Richard Biener  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Target Milestone|11.3|11.4

--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener  ---
GCC 11.3 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 11.4.

[Bug testsuite/101528] [11 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/int_128bit-runnable.c fails after r11-8743

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101528

Richard Biener  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Target Milestone|--- |11.2

[Bug testsuite/101528] [11 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/int_128bit-runnable.c fails after r11-8743

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101528

Richard Biener  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Target Milestone|11.2|11.3

--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener  ---
GCC 11.2 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 11.3

[Bug testsuite/101528] [11 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/int_128bit-runnable.c fails after r11-8743

[cel at us dot ibm.com via Gcc-bugs]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101528

Carl Love  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||cel at us dot ibm.com

--- Comment #6 from Carl Love  ---
I will look into this and see if the instruction counts have changed for some
reason.

[Bug testsuite/101528] [11 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/int_128bit-runnable.c fails after r11-8743

[cel at us dot ibm.com via Gcc-bugs]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101528

--- Comment #7 from Carl Love  ---
I recently committed a patch to fix the counts.

commit 5d336ae49528fde3904c9e5bfc83a450429b2961
Author: Carl Love 
Date:   Fri Mar 10 18:16:52 2023 -0500

rs6000: Fix test int_128bit-runnable.c instruction counts

The test reports two failures on Power 10LE:

FAIL: .../int_128bit-runnable.c scan-assembler-times mvdivsqM 1
FAIL: .../int_128bit-runnable.c scan-assembler-times mvextsd2qM 6

The current counts are :

  vdivsq   3
  vextsd2q 4


I tested mainline with the head at commit

commit 90685c365794e9afabc6cdc7eae7892ba5d2be3d (HEAD -> master, origin/trunk,
origin/master, origin/HEAD)
Author: Aldy Hernandez 
Date:   Mon May 22 20:15:19 2023 +0200

Implement some miscellaneous zero accessors for Value_Range.
...

Test gcc.target/powerpc/int_128bit-runnable.c is currently passing without any
regression failures.

I believe this bugzilla is ready to close.

[Bug testsuite/101528] [11 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/int_128bit-runnable.c fails after r11-8743

[bergner at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101528

Peter Bergner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Resolution|--- |FIXED
 Status|NEW |RESOLVED

--- Comment #8 from Peter Bergner  ---
(In reply to Carl Love from comment #7)
> I believe this bugzilla is ready to close.

Marking as fixed.  Thanks Carl.

[Bug testsuite/101528] [11 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/int_128bit-runnable.c fails after r11-8743

[mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101528

Marek Polacek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
 Ever confirmed|0   |1
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
   Last reconfirmed||2022-12-21

--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek  ---
Confirmed.