Hi Haochen,
on 2023/3/27 17:46, HAO CHEN GUI wrote:
> Kewen,
> The case still fails with trunk.
>
OK, thanks for checking, the proposed patch can catch the expected pattern
accurately (excluding noises), so okay for trunk and branches, thanks!
BR,
Kewen
> FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/pr56605.c s
Kewen,
The case still fails with trunk.
FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/pr56605.c scan-rtl-dump-times combine "\\(compare:CC
\\((?:and|zero_extend):(?:[SD]I) \\((?:sub)?reg:[SD]I" 1
=== gcc Summary ===
# of expected passes1
# of unexpected failures1
With the tr
Hi Alexandre and Haochen,
on 2023/3/25 16:42, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
> Ping https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-February/590958.html
>
> From: Haochen Gui
>
> This patch corrects the match pattern in pr56605.c. The former pattern
> is wrong and test case fails with
Ping https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-February/590958.html
From: Haochen Gui
This patch corrects the match pattern in pr56605.c. The former pattern
is wrong and test case fails with GCC11. It should match following
insn on each subtarget after mode promotion is disabled. The patc
Hi Segher,
Yes, the old committed patch caused it matches two insns.
So I submitted the new patch which fixes the problem. Here is
the new patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-February/590958.html
The new pattern is:
/* { dg-final { scan-rtl-dump-times {\(compare:CC \(and:SI \(
On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 04:05:06PM +0800, HAO CHEN GUI wrote:
>I tested the test case on Linux and AIX with both big and little endian.
> The test case requires lp64 target, so it won't be tested on 32-bit targets.
>
> On big endian (both AIX and Linux), it should match
> (compare:CC (and:SI (
Hi,
I tested the test case on Linux and AIX with both big and little endian.
The test case requires lp64 target, so it won't be tested on 32-bit targets.
On big endian (both AIX and Linux), it should match
(compare:CC (and:SI (subreg:SI (reg:DI 207) 4)
On little endian (both AIX and Linux), it
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 04:30:36PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> This should have been tested on Linux as well: it is now broken on both
> -m32 and -m64 there. Please revert?
Sorry, confusing with another new regression: this one is only -m64 of
course.
Segher
On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 08:54:14PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Apr 7, 2022, HAO CHEN GUI via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
> > Gentle ping this:
> >https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-February/590958.html
> > Thanks
>
> >> On 28/2/2022 上午 11:17, HAO CHEN GUI wrote:
>
> >>> This
On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 10:47:53AM +0800, HAO CHEN GUI wrote:
> There are two issues left in this PR. One is pr56605.c. My patch fixes it.
> Another is prefix-no-update.c. The patch Segher proposed in 103197 could fix
> it.
So today all remaining problems will be fixed. Thanks for shepherding
th
On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 08:54:14PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> How about this less strict change instead?
>
> ppc: testsuite: PROMOTE_MODE fallout pr56605 [PR102146]
>
> The test expects a compare of DImode values, but after the removal of
> PROMOTE_MODE from rs6000/, we get SImode. Adjust t
On Apr 7, 2022, HAO CHEN GUI via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Gentle ping this:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-February/590958.html
> Thanks
>> On 28/2/2022 上午 11:17, HAO CHEN GUI wrote:
>>> This patch corrects the match pattern in pr56605.c. The former pattern
>>> is wrong and
Hi,
On 9/4/2022 上午 3:36, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 11:17:27AM +0800, HAO CHEN GUI wrote:
>> This patch corrects the match pattern in pr56605.c. The former pattern
>> is wrong and test case fails with GCC11. It should match following insn on
>> each subtarget af
Hi,
On 9/4/2022 上午 12:48, will schmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 2022-02-28 at 11:17 +0800, HAO CHEN GUI via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> Hi,
>> This patch corrects the match pattern in pr56605.c. The former pattern
>> is wrong and test case fails with GCC11. It should match following insn on
>> each subtarget
Hi!
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 11:17:27AM +0800, HAO CHEN GUI wrote:
> This patch corrects the match pattern in pr56605.c. The former pattern
> is wrong and test case fails with GCC11. It should match following insn on
> each subtarget after mode promotion is disabled. The patch need to be
> backpo
On Mon, 2022-02-28 at 11:17 +0800, HAO CHEN GUI via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Hi,
> This patch corrects the match pattern in pr56605.c. The former pattern
> is wrong and test case fails with GCC11. It should match following insn on
> each subtarget after mode promotion is disabled. The patch need to b
Hi,
Gentle ping this:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-February/590958.html
Thanks
On 15/3/2022 上午 10:06, HAO CHEN GUI wrote:
> Hi,
> Gentle ping this:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-February/590958.html
> Thanks
>
> On 28/2/2022 上午 11:17, HAO CHEN GUI wro
Hi,
Gentle ping this:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-February/590958.html
Thanks
On 28/2/2022 上午 11:17, HAO CHEN GUI wrote:
> Hi,
> This patch corrects the match pattern in pr56605.c. The former pattern
> is wrong and test case fails with GCC11. It should match following insn
Hi,
This patch corrects the match pattern in pr56605.c. The former pattern
is wrong and test case fails with GCC11. It should match following insn on
each subtarget after mode promotion is disabled. The patch need to be
backported to GCC11.
//gimple
_17 = (unsigned int) _20;
prolog_loop_niters.
19 matches
Mail list logo
