https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61153
christophe.lyon at st dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resoluti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61153
--- Comment #12 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to christophe.lyon from comment #11)
> (In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #10)
> > (In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #9)
> > > Hi, these tests are still failing.
> > > wha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61153
--- Comment #11 from christophe.lyon at st dot com ---
(In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #10)
> (In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #9)
> > Hi, these tests are still failing.
> > what are we gonna do about it?
>
>
> I am happy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61153
--- Comment #10 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #9)
> Hi, these tests are still failing.
> what are we gonna do about it?
I am happy for a patch to delete them.
Ramana
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61153
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61153
--- Comment #8 from ramana.radhakrishnan at arm dot com ---
>
> How do we define "cases where we need them"? My concern is that some compiler
> change might cause a suboptimal-yet-functional code to be generated, and we
> wouldn't notice it.
>
We
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61153
--- Comment #7 from christophe.lyon at st dot com ---
(In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #5)
> > Do we plan to keep these scan-assembler tests? or go with just functional
> > tests?
>
> No, not these scan assembler tests. They serve no
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61153
--- Comment #6 from christophe.lyon at st dot com ---
(In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #4)
> Yes that is expected as per my original patch submission. Patch 1/3 said
> these tests would fail because at O0 combine doesn't run.
Indeed,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61153
--- Comment #5 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
> Do we plan to keep these scan-assembler tests? or go with just functional
> tests?
No, not these scan assembler tests. They serve no purpose.
I'm expecting them to get replaced by the testsuite yo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61153
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61153
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> So maybe we should add some optimization level to the existing tests in the
> meantime?
Transforming them into something like
#include "arm_neon.h"
volatile int16x8_t arg0_int16x8_t;
volatile
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61153
--- Comment #2 from christophe.lyon at st dot com ---
OK, but my tests currently don't inspect the generated code.
They are execution tests, which means the could be PASS using only core
instructions, and no Neon one.
So maybe we should add some
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61153
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
13 matches
Mail list logo
