On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 at 06:08, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > @@ -10288,6 +10261,23 @@ vectorizable_condition (stmt_vec_info stmt_info,
> > gimple_stmt_iterator *gsi,
> > vect_finish_stmt_generation (stmt_info, new_stmt, gsi);
> >
Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> @@ -10288,6 +10261,23 @@ vectorizable_condition (stmt_vec_info stmt_info,
> gimple_stmt_iterator *gsi,
> vect_finish_stmt_generation (stmt_info, new_stmt, gsi);
> vec_compare = vec_compare_name;
> }
> +
> + if
On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 at 14:18, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Hi Prathamesh,
>
> I've just committed a patch that fixes a large number of SVE
> reduction-related failures. Could you rebase and retest on top of that?
> Sorry for messing you around, but regression testing based on the state
> before
Hi Prathamesh,
I've just committed a patch that fixes a large number of SVE
reduction-related failures. Could you rebase and retest on top of that?
Sorry for messing you around, but regression testing based on the state
before the patch wouldn't have been that meaningful. In particular...
On Tue, 22 Oct 2019 at 13:12, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > diff --git a/gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c b/gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c
> > index acdd90784dc..dfd33b142ed 100644
> > --- a/gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c
> > +++ b/gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c
> > @@ -10016,25 +10016,26 @@
Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> diff --git a/gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c b/gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c
> index acdd90784dc..dfd33b142ed 100644
> --- a/gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c
> +++ b/gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c
> @@ -10016,25 +10016,26 @@ vectorizable_condition (stmt_vec_info stmt_info,
> gimple_stmt_iterator *gsi,
>
On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 at 14:36, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > Hi,
> > The attached patch tries to fix PR91272.
> > Does it look OK ?
> >
> > With patch, I see following failures for aarch64-sve.exp:
> > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/sve/clastb_1.c -march=armv8.2-a+sve
> >
Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> Hi,
> The attached patch tries to fix PR91272.
> Does it look OK ?
>
> With patch, I see following failures for aarch64-sve.exp:
> FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/sve/clastb_1.c -march=armv8.2-a+sve
> scan-assembler \\tclastb\\tw[0-9]+, p[0-7], w[0-9]+, z[0-9]+\\.s
> FAIL:
Hi,
The attached patch tries to fix PR91272.
Does it look OK ?
With patch, I see following failures for aarch64-sve.exp:
FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/sve/clastb_1.c -march=armv8.2-a+sve
scan-assembler \\tclastb\\tw[0-9]+, p[0-7], w[0-9]+, z[0-9]+\\.s
FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/sve/clastb_2.c
