[Bug tree-optimization/71264] [5 Regression] ICE in convert_move
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71264 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|5.5 |6.2 --- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 5 branch has been closed, should be fixed in GCC 6.2 and later.
[Bug tree-optimization/71264] [5 Regression] ICE in convert_move
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71264 --- Comment #24 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Fri Jan 20 08:01:27 2017 New Revision: 244683 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244683=gcc=rev Log: 2017-01-20 Richard BienerPR tree-optimization/71264 * gcc.dg/vect/pr71264.c: Make sure memory is aligned. Modified: trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr71264.c
[Bug tree-optimization/71264] [5 Regression] ICE in convert_move
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71264 --- Comment #23 from Rainer Orth --- (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #22) > On Mon, 24 Oct 2016, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71264 > > > > --- Comment #21 from Eric Botcazou --- > > > It is supposed to be vectorized on targets w/o V4QImode support. > > > Not sure if the list of targets that FAIL the testcase would be smaller > > > if I change the scan to an explicit list of targets (x86)? > > > > Not sure indeed, it passes on PowerPC & PowerPC64 too for example. > > > > > Meanwhile just add more targets to the xfail -- it really is a missed > > > optimization as I guess for example arm also has V4SImode. > > > > There is no XFAIL currently but we can certainly add one. > > Ah, right ... my tree has local changes: > > Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr71264.c > === > --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr71264.c (revision 241395) > +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr71264.c (working copy) > @@ -7,6 +7,8 @@ typedef uint8_t footype __attribute__((v > void test(uint8_t *ptr, uint8_t *mask) > { >footype mv; > + ptr = __builtin_assume_aligned (ptr, __alignof__ (footype)); > + mask = __builtin_assume_aligned (mask, __alignof__ (footype)); >__builtin_memcpy(, mask, sizeof(mv)); >for (unsigned i = 0; i < 16; i += 4) > { > @@ -17,4 +19,4 @@ void test(uint8_t *ptr, uint8_t *mask) > } > } > > -/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "vectorized 1 loops in function" "vect" } > } */ > +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "vectorized 1 loops in function" "vect" { > xfail sparc*-*-* } } } */ Shouldn't this patch be applied then? Rainer
[Bug tree-optimization/71264] [5 Regression] ICE in convert_move
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71264 --- Comment #22 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 24 Oct 2016, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71264 > > --- Comment #21 from Eric Botcazou --- > > It is supposed to be vectorized on targets w/o V4QImode support. > > Not sure if the list of targets that FAIL the testcase would be smaller > > if I change the scan to an explicit list of targets (x86)? > > Not sure indeed, it passes on PowerPC & PowerPC64 too for example. > > > Meanwhile just add more targets to the xfail -- it really is a missed > > optimization as I guess for example arm also has V4SImode. > > There is no XFAIL currently but we can certainly add one. Ah, right ... my tree has local changes: Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr71264.c === --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr71264.c (revision 241395) +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr71264.c (working copy) @@ -7,6 +7,8 @@ typedef uint8_t footype __attribute__((v void test(uint8_t *ptr, uint8_t *mask) { footype mv; + ptr = __builtin_assume_aligned (ptr, __alignof__ (footype)); + mask = __builtin_assume_aligned (mask, __alignof__ (footype)); __builtin_memcpy(, mask, sizeof(mv)); for (unsigned i = 0; i < 16; i += 4) { @@ -17,4 +19,4 @@ void test(uint8_t *ptr, uint8_t *mask) } } -/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "vectorized 1 loops in function" "vect" } } */ +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "vectorized 1 loops in function" "vect" { xfail sparc*-*-* } } } */
[Bug tree-optimization/71264] [5 Regression] ICE in convert_move
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71264 --- Comment #21 from Eric Botcazou --- > It is supposed to be vectorized on targets w/o V4QImode support. > Not sure if the list of targets that FAIL the testcase would be smaller > if I change the scan to an explicit list of targets (x86)? Not sure indeed, it passes on PowerPC & PowerPC64 too for example. > Meanwhile just add more targets to the xfail -- it really is a missed > optimization as I guess for example arm also has V4SImode. There is no XFAIL currently but we can certainly add one.
[Bug tree-optimization/71264] [5 Regression] ICE in convert_move
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71264 --- Comment #20 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Sat, 22 Oct 2016, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71264 > > Eric Botcazou changed: > >What|Removed |Added > > CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org > > --- Comment #19 from Eric Botcazou --- > Richard, can you make the testcase compile-only if it cannot be vectorized in > the end (except for x86 by chance apparently)? It is supposed to be vectorized on targets w/o V4QImode support. Not sure if the list of targets that FAIL the testcase would be smaller if I change the scan to an explicit list of targets (x86)? Meanwhile just add more targets to the xfail -- it really is a missed optimization as I guess for example arm also has V4SImode. (I tried to fix the vectorizer to deal with vector types in the IL but failed to quickly handle it)
[Bug tree-optimization/71264] [5 Regression] ICE in convert_move
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71264 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #19 from Eric Botcazou --- Richard, can you make the testcase compile-only if it cannot be vectorized in the end (except for x86 by chance apparently)?