[Bug target/109949] new test case experimental/simd/pr109261_constexpr_simd.cc in r12-9647-g3acbaf1b253215 fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109949 --- Comment #7 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) --- > You should backport to N-1 first [...] That was my intent. My workflow had not yet adapted to the existence of releases/gcc-13. Fixed. > never use -mpower9-vector and friends I use -mpcu in my dejagnu boards (and the equivalent for 'check-simd'). IIUC the -maltivec -mpower9-vector flags are added by check_vect_support_and_set_flags in lib/target-supports.exp. The problem was a branch that I apparently never tested (because the check-simd testsuite wants to compile *and* run). https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=blob;f=libstdc%2B%2B-v3/include/experimental/bits/simd_ppc.h;h=eca1b34241bb4efdbbb6490550750d81aee248b3;hb=HEAD#l133 The `vec_cntm(__to_intrin(__kv), 1)` call uses an incorrect type for the first argument. The compiler message isn't very helpful, though. Patch coming up.
[Bug target/109949] new test case experimental/simd/pr109261_constexpr_simd.cc in r12-9647-g3acbaf1b253215 fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109949 --- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool --- (In reply to Matthias Kretz (Vir) from comment #4) > With -mcpu=power10 I see the issue. The problem has been there all the time > and only surfaced with this test. (It should also have shown on `make > check-simd` in libstdc++.) Yup, you should never use -mpower9-vector and friends. Such options are handy *during development* but are heavily problematic later; they should never have existed in mainline. What is the actual problem here? Or do you want to build up the suspense and only show it in the patch you will send :-)
[Bug target/109949] new test case experimental/simd/pr109261_constexpr_simd.cc in r12-9647-g3acbaf1b253215 fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109949 --- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool --- (In reply to Matthias Kretz (Vir) from comment #2) > Yes, I stopped my backporting efforts when I became aware that it's failing > on ARM. I'll get to PPC ASAP and then continue with the backports. You should backport to N-1 first, only then to N-2, etc. Sanity is nice :-) Next time :-)
[Bug target/109949] new test case experimental/simd/pr109261_constexpr_simd.cc in r12-9647-g3acbaf1b253215 fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109949 --- Comment #4 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) --- With -mcpu=power10 I see the issue. The problem has been there all the time and only surfaced with this test. (It should also have shown on `make check-simd` in libstdc++.)
[Bug target/109949] new test case experimental/simd/pr109261_constexpr_simd.cc in r12-9647-g3acbaf1b253215 fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109949 --- Comment #3 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) --- I need help on how to reproduce this error. Your first lines say that the test was compiled with `-maltivec -mpower9-vector -O2 -Wno-psabi` but that it only happens with POWER 10? Do I need different compiler flags? I have an idea why it might break, but then that doesn't explain why it doesn't break for POWER 7/8/9 as well. Is there a chance that the __builtin_vec_cntm signature changes incompatibly with POWER 10?
[Bug target/109949] new test case experimental/simd/pr109261_constexpr_simd.cc in r12-9647-g3acbaf1b253215 fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109949 Matthias Kretz (Vir) changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mkretz at gcc dot gnu.org Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed||2023-05-24 Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
[Bug target/109949] new test case experimental/simd/pr109261_constexpr_simd.cc in r12-9647-g3acbaf1b253215 fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109949 --- Comment #2 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) --- Yes, I stopped my backporting efforts when I became aware that it's failing on ARM. I'll get to PPC ASAP and then continue with the backports.
[Bug target/109949] new test case experimental/simd/pr109261_constexpr_simd.cc in r12-9647-g3acbaf1b253215 fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109949 --- Comment #1 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org --- I see the same test failing on trunk and the gcc 12 commit mentions it being a backport. The test is not in gcc 13 currently.
