On Thu, 2015-04-30 at 18:26 +0800, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 9:26 PM, Bill Schmidt
> <wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2015-04-27 at 14:23 +0800, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> >> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 1:42 AM, Bill Schmidt
> >> <wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> > Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-33.c
> >> > ===================================================================
> >> > --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-33.c (revision 221118)
> >> > +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-33.c (working copy)
> >> > @@ -36,9 +36,10 @@ int main (void)
> >> > return main1 ();
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > +/* vect_hw_misalign && { ! vect64 } */
> >> >
> >> > /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "vectorized 1 loops" 1 "vect" } }
> >> > */
> >> > -/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "Vectorizing an unaligned access" "vect"
> >> > { target { vect_hw_misalign && { {! vect64} || vect_multiple_sizes } } }
> >> > } } */
> >> > +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "Vectorizing an unaligned access" "vect"
> >> > { target { { { ! powerpc*-*-* } && vect_hw_misalign } && { { ! vect64 }
> >> > || vect_multiple_sizes } } } } } */
> >> > /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "Alignment of access forced using
> >> > peeling" "vect" { target { vector_alignment_reachable && { vect64 && {!
> >> > vect_multiple_sizes} } } } } } */
> >> > /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced using
> >> > versioning" 1 "vect" { target { { {! vector_alignment_reachable} || {!
> >> > vect64} } && {! vect_hw_misalign} } } } } */
> >> > /* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "vect" } } */
> >>
> >> Hi Bill,
> >> With this change, the test case is skipped on aarch64 now. Since it
> >> passed before, Is it expected to act like this on 64bit platforms?
> >
> > Hi Bin,
> >
> > No, that's a mistake on my part -- thanks for the report! That first
> > added line was not intended to be part of the patch:
> >
> > +/* vect_hw_misalign && { ! vect64 } */
> >
> > Please try removing that line and verify that the patch succeeds again
> > for ARM. Assuming so, I'll prepare a patch to fix this.
> >
> > It looks like this mistake was introduced only in this particular test,
> > but please let me know if you see any other anomalies.
> Hi Bill,
> I chased the wrong branch. The test disappeared on fsf-48 branch in
> out build, rather than trunk. I guess it's not your patch's fault.
> Will follow up and get back to you later.
> Sorry for the inconvenience.
OK, thanks for letting me know! There was still a bad line in this
patch, although it was only introduced in 5.1 and trunk, so I guess that
wasn't responsible in this case. Thanks for checking!
Bill
>
> Thanks,
> bin
> >
> > Thanks very much!
> >
> > Bill
> >>
> >> PASS->NA: gcc.dg/vect/vect-33.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects
> >> scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 0
> >> PASS->NA: gcc.dg/vect/vect-33.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing
> >> an unaligned access" 0
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> bin
> >>
> >
> >
>
