[Bug testsuite/115262] [15 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/pr66144-3.c fails after r15-831-g05daf617ea22e1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115262 Peter Bergner changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED Known to fail||15.0 --- Comment #5 from Peter Bergner --- Fixed.
[Bug testsuite/115262] [15 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/pr66144-3.c fails after r15-831-g05daf617ea22e1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115262 --- Comment #4 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Peter Bergner : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ae8103a3a13ac412b9ca33222594cb507ceac9f7 commit r15-1232-gae8103a3a13ac412b9ca33222594cb507ceac9f7 Author: Peter Bergner Date: Wed Jun 12 21:05:34 2024 -0500 rs6000: Fix pr66144-3.c test to accept multiple equivalent insns. [PR115262] Jeff's commit r15-831-g05daf617ea22e1 changed the instruction we expected for this test case into an equivalent instruction. Modify the test case so it will accept any of three instructions we could get depending on the options used. 2024-06-12 Peter Bergner gcc/testsuite/ PR testsuite/115262 * gcc.target/powerpc/pr66144-3.c (dg-do): Compile for all targets. (dg-options): Add -fno-unroll-loops and remove -mvsx. (scan-assembler): Change from this... (scan-assembler-times): ...to this. Tweak regex to accept multiple allowable instructions.
[Bug testsuite/115262] [15 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/pr66144-3.c fails after r15-831-g05daf617ea22e1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115262 Peter Bergner changed: What|Removed |Added URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma ||il/gcc-patches/2024-June/65 ||4397.html Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
[Bug testsuite/115262] [15 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/pr66144-3.c fails after r15-831-g05daf617ea22e1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115262 --- Comment #3 from Kewen Lin --- (In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #2) > (In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #1) > > It looks like the test wants to see xxsel, but after that change we get > > xxlor and what looks like a slight difference in register allocation. I > > can't really judge if the new code is better, worse is equivalent. > > xxsel XT,XA,XB,XC computes XT = (XA & ~XC) | (XB & XC). Using De Morgan's > law given XB == XC, that seems to simplify to XT = XA | XB which is what > you're producing and an xxlor (a simple logical or) is not going to be > slower than a xxsel and is probably faster. I agree with Bill that this > looks like an example of needing to update the expected results of the test > case. I'll let Segher and/or Ke Wen comment though. I agree they are equivalent here, from the scheduling descriptions, xxsel and xxlor are in the same unit.
[Bug testsuite/115262] [15 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/pr66144-3.c fails after r15-831-g05daf617ea22e1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115262 --- Comment #2 from Peter Bergner --- (In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #1) > It looks like the test wants to see xxsel, but after that change we get > xxlor and what looks like a slight difference in register allocation. I > can't really judge if the new code is better, worse is equivalent. xxsel XT,XA,XB,XC computes XT = (XA & ~XC) | (XB & XC). Using De Morgan's law given XB == XC, that seems to simplify to XT = XA | XB which is what you're producing and an xxlor (a simple logical or) is not going to be slower than a xxsel and is probably faster. I agree with Bill that this looks like an example of needing to update the expected results of the test case. I'll let Segher and/or Ke Wen comment though.
[Bug testsuite/115262] [15 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/pr66144-3.c fails after r15-831-g05daf617ea22e1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115262 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed||2024-06-10 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW --- Comment #1 from Jeffrey A. Law --- It looks like the test wants to see xxsel, but after that change we get xxlor and what looks like a slight difference in register allocation. I can't really judge if the new code is better, worse is equivalent. *** good.s 2024-06-10 16:33:48.717342836 -0600 --- bad.s 2024-06-10 16:34:01.005143026 -0600 *** test: *** 36,45 lxvd2x 0,8,9 vcmpequw 1,1,12 vcmpequw 0,0,13 ! xxsel 33,12,33,33 ! xxsel 32,0,32,32 ! stxvd2x 33,9,10 ! stxvd2x 32,8,9 addi 9,9,32 bdnz .L2 blr --- 36,45 lxvd2x 0,8,9 vcmpequw 1,1,12 vcmpequw 0,0,13 ! xxlor 12,12,33 ! xxlor 0,0,32 ! stxvd2x 12,9,10 ! stxvd2x 0,8,9 addi 9,9,32 bdnz .L2 blr
[Bug testsuite/115262] [15 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/pr66144-3.c fails after r15-831-g05daf617ea22e1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115262 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |15.0
