Re: [PATCH 4/4] Un-XFAIL ssa-dom-cse-2.c for most platforms

On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 11:41:02AM +, Alan Lawrence wrote: > On 26/01/16 12:23, Dominik Vogt wrote: > >On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 01:13:28PM +, Alan Lawrence wrote: > >>...the test passes with --param sra-max-scalarization-size-Ospeed. > >> > >>Verified on aarch64 and with stage1 compiler for

Re: [PATCH 4/4] Un-XFAIL ssa-dom-cse-2.c for most platforms

On 04/02/16 09:53, Dominik Vogt wrote: On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 11:41:02AM +, Alan Lawrence wrote: On 26/01/16 12:23, Dominik Vogt wrote: On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 01:13:28PM +, Alan Lawrence wrote: ...the test passes with --param sra-max-scalarization-size-Ospeed. Verified on aarch64

Re: [PATCH 4/4] Un-XFAIL ssa-dom-cse-2.c for most platforms

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Alan Lawrence wrote: > On 04/02/16 09:53, Dominik Vogt wrote: >> >> On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 11:41:02AM +, Alan Lawrence wrote: >>> >>> On 26/01/16 12:23, Dominik Vogt wrote: On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 01:13:28PM +, Alan

Re: [PATCH 4/4] Un-XFAIL ssa-dom-cse-2.c for most platforms

On 26/01/16 12:23, Dominik Vogt wrote: On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 01:13:28PM +, Alan Lawrence wrote: ...the test passes with --param sra-max-scalarization-size-Ospeed. Verified on aarch64 and with stage1 compiler for hppa, powerpc, sparc, s390. How did you test this on s390? For me, the

Re: [PATCH 4/4] Un-XFAIL ssa-dom-cse-2.c for most platforms

On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 01:13:28PM +, Alan Lawrence wrote: > ...the test passes with --param sra-max-scalarization-size-Ospeed. > > Verified on aarch64 and with stage1 compiler for hppa, powerpc, sparc, s390. How did you test this on s390? For me, the test still fails unless I add

Re: [PATCH 4/4] Un-XFAIL ssa-dom-cse-2.c for most platforms

It seems the conclusion on PowerPC is to XFAIL the test on powerpc64 (there will be XPASSes with -mcpu=power7 or -mcpu=power8). Which is what the original patch does (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-12/msg01979.html). So, Ping. Thanks, Alan On 21/12/15 15:33, Bill Schmidt wrote: On

Re: [PATCH 4/4] Un-XFAIL ssa-dom-cse-2.c for most platforms

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Alan Lawrence wrote: > It seems the conclusion on PowerPC is to XFAIL the test on powerpc64 (there > will be XPASSes with -mcpu=power7 or -mcpu=power8). Which is what the > original patch does >

Re: [PATCH 4/4] Un-XFAIL ssa-dom-cse-2.c for most platforms

On 24/12/15 19:59, Mike Stump wrote: On Dec 22, 2015, at 8:00 AM, Alan Lawrence wrote: On 21/12/15 15:33, Bill Schmidt wrote: Not on a stage1 compiler - check_p8vector_hw_available itself requires being able to run executables - I'll check on gcc112. However, both

Re: [PATCH 4/4] Un-XFAIL ssa-dom-cse-2.c for most platforms

On Dec 22, 2015, at 8:00 AM, Alan Lawrence wrote: > On 21/12/15 15:33, Bill Schmidt wrote: >>> >>> Not on a stage1 compiler - check_p8vector_hw_available itself requires being >>> able to run executables - I'll check on gcc112. However, both look like >>> they're >>>

Re: [PATCH 4/4] Un-XFAIL ssa-dom-cse-2.c for most platforms

On 21/12/15 15:33, Bill Schmidt wrote: Not on a stage1 compiler - check_p8vector_hw_available itself requires being able to run executables - I'll check on gcc112. However, both look like they're really about the host (ability to execute an asm instruction), not the target (/ability for gcc to

Re: [PATCH 4/4] Un-XFAIL ssa-dom-cse-2.c for most platforms

On Tue, 2015-12-22 at 16:00 +, Alan Lawrence wrote: > On 21/12/15 15:33, Bill Schmidt wrote: > >> > >> Not on a stage1 compiler - check_p8vector_hw_available itself requires > >> being > >> able to run executables - I'll check on gcc112. However, both look like > >> they're > >> really about

[PATCH 4/4] Un-XFAIL ssa-dom-cse-2.c for most platforms

...the test passes with --param sra-max-scalarization-size-Ospeed. Verified on aarch64 and with stage1 compiler for hppa, powerpc, sparc, s390. On alpha, tree-optimized is: MEM[(int[8] *)] = { 0, 1 }; MEM[(int[8] *) + 8B] = { 2, 3 }; MEM[(int[8] *) + 16B] = { 4, 5 }; MEM[(int[8] *) +

Re: [PATCH 4/4] Un-XFAIL ssa-dom-cse-2.c for most platforms

On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 8:13 AM, Alan Lawrence wrote: > ...the test passes with --param sra-max-scalarization-size-Ospeed. > > Verified on aarch64 and with stage1 compiler for hppa, powerpc, sparc, s390. > > On alpha, tree-optimized is: > > MEM[(int[8] *)] = { 0, 1 }; >

Re: [PATCH 4/4] Un-XFAIL ssa-dom-cse-2.c for most platforms

On Mon, 2015-12-21 at 15:22 +, Alan Lawrence wrote: > On 21/12/15 14:59, Bill Schmidt wrote: > >>> > >>> On powerpc64, the test passes with -mcpu=power8 (the loop is vectorized > >>> as a > >>> reduction); however, without that, similar code is generated to Alpha (the > >>> vectorizer decides

Re: [PATCH 4/4] Un-XFAIL ssa-dom-cse-2.c for most platforms

On Mon, 2015-12-21 at 09:10 -0500, David Edelsohn wrote: > On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 8:13 AM, Alan Lawrence wrote: > > ...the test passes with --param sra-max-scalarization-size-Ospeed. > > > > Verified on aarch64 and with stage1 compiler for hppa, powerpc, sparc, s390. > > >

Re: [PATCH 4/4] Un-XFAIL ssa-dom-cse-2.c for most platforms

On 21/12/15 14:59, Bill Schmidt wrote: On powerpc64, the test passes with -mcpu=power8 (the loop is vectorized as a reduction); however, without that, similar code is generated to Alpha (the vectorizer decides the reduction is not worthwhile without SIMD support), and the test fails; hence,

Re: [PATCH 4/4] Un-XFAIL ssa-dom-cse-2.c for most platforms

On 21/12/15 14:59, Bill Schmidt wrote: On powerpc64, the test passes with -mcpu=power8 (the loop is vectorized as a reduction); however, without that, similar code is generated to Alpha (the vectorizer decides the reduction is not worthwhile without SIMD support), and the test fails; hence,