[Bug tree-optimization/80925] [8 Regression] vect peeling failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925 --- Comment #33 from Rainer Orth --- Author: ro Date: Tue Aug 7 08:58:20 2018 New Revision: 263353 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263353=gcc=rev Log: Fix gcc.dg/vect/no-section-anchors-vect-69.c on SPARC etc. (PR tree-optimization/80925)

[Bug tree-optimization/80925] [8 Regression] vect peeling failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925 --- Comment #32 from Rainer Orth --- Author: ro Date: Tue Aug 7 08:51:29 2018 New Revision: 263352 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263352=gcc=rev Log: Fix gcc.dg/vect/no-section-anchors-vect-69.c on SPARC etc. (PR tree-optimization/80925)

[Bug tree-optimization/80925] [8 Regression] vect peeling failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925 --- Comment #31 from Rainer Orth --- Created attachment 44498 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44498=edit Proposed patch for gcc.dg/vect/no-section-anchors-vect-69.c failure

[Bug tree-optimization/80925] [8 Regression] vect peeling failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #30

[Bug tree-optimization/80925] [8 Regression] vect peeling failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/80925] [8 Regression] vect peeling failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925 --- Comment #28 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org --- FWIW I am still seeing these fail: FAIL: g++.dg/vect/slp-pr56812.cc -std=c++11 scan-tree-dump-times slp1 "basic block vectorized" 1 (found 0 times) FAIL: g++.dg/vect/slp-pr56812.cc -std=c++14

[Bug tree-optimization/80925] [8 Regression] vect peeling failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925 --- Comment #27 from Steve Ellcey --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #26) > Fixed? I see still these vect failures on aarch64: FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr65947-14.c execution test FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr65947-14.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects

[Bug tree-optimization/80925] [8 Regression] vect peeling failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Version|7.0 |8.0 Target Milestone|---

[Bug tree-optimization/80925] [8 Regression] vect peeling failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925 --- Comment #25 from Steve Ellcey --- Author: sje Date: Wed Sep 13 18:06:36 2017 New Revision: 252723 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=252723=gcc=rev Log: 2017-09-13 Steve Ellcey PR tree-optimization/80925

[Bug tree-optimization/80925] [8 Regression] vect peeling failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925 --- Comment #24 from Aldy Hernandez --- Author: aldyh Date: Wed Sep 13 16:14:53 2017 New Revision: 252228 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=252228=gcc=rev Log: 2017-08-01 Steve Ellcey PR

[Bug tree-optimization/80925] [8 Regression] vect peeling failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925 --- Comment #23 from Aldy Hernandez --- Author: aldyh Date: Wed Sep 13 16:09:53 2017 New Revision: 252203 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=252203=gcc=rev Log: 2017-07-31 Steve Ellcey PR

[Bug tree-optimization/80925] [8 Regression] vect peeling failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925 --- Comment #22 from Steve Ellcey --- (In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #21) > I think this change caused regressions on armeb-none-linux-gnueabihf > --with-cpu=cortex-a9 --with-fpu=neon-fp16 (works OK > --with-fpu=vfpv3-d16-fp16)

[Bug tree-optimization/80925] [8 Regression] vect peeling failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925 Christophe Lyon changed: What|Removed |Added CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/80925] [8 Regression] vect peeling failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Version|7.0 |8.0 Target Milestone|---

[Bug tree-optimization/80925] [8 Regression] vect peeling failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925 --- Comment #20 from Steve Ellcey --- Author: sje Date: Tue Aug 1 15:37:22 2017 New Revision: 250783 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250783=gcc=rev Log: 2017-08-01 Steve Ellcey PR tree-optimization/80925

[Bug tree-optimization/80925] [8 Regression] vect peeling failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925 --- Comment #19 from Steve Ellcey --- Author: sje Date: Mon Jul 31 21:44:34 2017 New Revision: 250752 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250752=gcc=rev Log: 2017-07-31 Steve Ellcey PR tree-optimization/80925

[Bug tree-optimization/80925] [8 Regression] vect peeling failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925 --- Comment #18 from Steve Ellcey --- See https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-07/msg01862.html for a proposed patch to update the tests.

[Bug tree-optimization/80925] [8 Regression] vect peeling failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925 --- Comment #17 from Bill Schmidt --- That is the usual approach, and there are already some predicates involving alignment. It's a matter of going through and figuring out which ones will do what's needed. I spent some tiresome weeks working

[Bug tree-optimization/80925] [8 Regression] vect peeling failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925 --- Comment #16 from rdapp at linux dot vnet.ibm.com --- (In reply to seurer from comment #14) > spawn -ignore SIGHUP /home/seurer/gcc/build/gcc-test/gcc/xgcc > -B/home/seurer/gcc/build/gcc-test/gcc/ >

[Bug tree-optimization/80925] [8 Regression] vect peeling failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925 --- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski --- These started to fail on aarch64-*-* at the same time as powerpc.

[Bug tree-optimization/80925] [8 Regression] vect peeling failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925 --- Comment #14 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org --- spawn -ignore SIGHUP /home/seurer/gcc/build/gcc-test/gcc/xgcc -B/home/seurer/gcc/build/gcc-test/gcc/ /home/seurer/gcc/gcc-test/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-33-big-array.c

[Bug tree-optimization/80925] [8 Regression] vect peeling failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925 --- Comment #13 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 41475 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41475=edit Dump from -fdump-tree-vect-details for test case gcc.dg/vect/vect-33-big-array.c

[Bug tree-optimization/80925] [8 Regression] vect peeling failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925 --- Comment #12 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org --- Hmmm, they don't all fail on power6/7 (costmodel-pr37194.c for instance). I attached a dump from -fdump-tree-vect-details for one that does (power6).

[Bug tree-optimization/80925] [8 Regression] vect peeling failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925 --- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt --- Well, I should be more careful -- the behavior you see is probably reasonable for these runtime tests, since the testing infrastructure isn't aware that you built for an older architecture on the POWER8 it

[Bug tree-optimization/80925] [8 Regression] vect peeling failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925 --- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt --- (In reply to rdapp from comment #9) > > Therefore, whenever the vector tests are run on a power8 CPU, > TARGET_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_VSX = 1, no matter the --with-cpu. This would > also explain why I didn't

[Bug tree-optimization/80925] [8 Regression] vect peeling failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925 --- Comment #9 from rdapp at linux dot vnet.ibm.com --- I built --with-cpu=power7 and still see TARGET_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_VSX == true in the backend which causes unaligned stores to have costs of 1. On my power7 system,

[Bug tree-optimization/80925] [8 Regression] vect peeling failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925 --- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt --- The cost modeling doesn't explain failures on P6 and P7, I guess. For P8 we consider unaligned loads to be the same cost as aligned loads (this is a small lie because of boundary-crossing costs, but these

[Bug tree-optimization/80925] [8 Regression] vect peeling failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925 --- Comment #7 from rdapp at linux dot vnet.ibm.com --- I could reproduce the fails on a power8 machine now. Looking at the vect-28.c FAIL now - the loop to be vectorized is: for (i = 0; i < N; i++) { ia[i+off] = 5; } It still

[Bug tree-optimization/80925] [8 Regression] vect peeling failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925 --- Comment #6 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org --- I see them still for r248738. My configure is pretty simple: --enable-languages=c,fortran,c++ --with-cpu=power8 --disable-bootstrap and it's the same on both BE and LE. I am using binutils

[Bug tree-optimization/80925] [8 Regression] vect peeling failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925 --- Comment #5 from rdapp at linux dot vnet.ibm.com --- I quickly built trunk without bootstrap on power7 BE ("--enable-languages="c,c++,fortran" --disable-multilib --disable-bootstrap") and still get no new fails. Do I need other build

[Bug tree-optimization/80925] [8 Regression] vect peeling failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||seurer at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug tree-optimization/80925] [8 Regression] vect peeling failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925 --- Comment #3 from rdapp at linux dot vnet.ibm.com --- Strange, my tests didn't show new failures on Power7. I'll have a look, perhaps the build settings were wrong.

[Bug tree-optimization/80925] [8 Regression] vect peeling failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug tree-optimization/80925] [8 Regression] vect peeling failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925 David Edelsohn changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|