Hi Segher,
on 2023/5/25 19:22, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 07:05:55AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On May 25, 2023, "Kewen.Lin" wrote:
>>> So both lp64 and ilp32 have the same count, could we merge it and
>>> remove the selectors?
>>
>> We could, but... I
Hi Alex,
On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 10:55:37AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May 25, 2023, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > Fwiw, updating the insn counts blindly like this
>
> ... is a claim that carries a wildly incorrect and insulting underlying
> assumption:
Sorry you feel that way. I'm
On May 25, 2023, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Fwiw, updating the insn counts blindly like this
... is a claim that carries a wildly incorrect and insulting underlying
assumption: I've actually identified the corresponding change to the
lp64 tests, compared the effects of the codegen changes, and
Hi!
On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 07:05:55AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May 25, 2023, "Kewen.Lin" wrote:
> > So both lp64 and ilp32 have the same count, could we merge it and
> > remove the selectors?
>
> We could, but... I thought I wouldn't, since they were different
> before, and they're
On May 25, 2023, "Kewen.Lin" wrote:
> Thanks for fixing, I tested this on ppc64le and ppc64 {-m64,-m32}
> well.
Thanks!
> I think this is for PR101169, could you add it as PR marker?
Nice, will do!
>> -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {\maddi\M|\madd\M} 3 { target ilp32 }
>> } } */
>>
Hi Alexandre,
on 2023/5/24 13:51, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> Codegen changes caused add instruction count mismatches on
> ppc-*-linux-gnu and other 32-bit ppc targets. At some point the
> expected counts were adjusted for lp64, but ilp32 differences
> remained, and published test results
Codegen changes caused add instruction count mismatches on
ppc-*-linux-gnu and other 32-bit ppc targets. At some point the
expected counts were adjusted for lp64, but ilp32 differences
remained, and published test results confirm it.
Bootstrapped on x86_64-linux-gnu. Also tested on ppc- and
