[Bug target/85080] [8 regression] gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-pr37194.c fails starting with r248678

[wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85080

Bill Schmidt  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |FIXED

--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt  ---
Fixed.

[Bug target/85080] [8 regression] gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-pr37194.c fails starting with r248678

[wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85080

--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt  ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Apr 16 18:18:42 2018
New Revision: 259407

URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259407=gcc=rev
Log:
[gcc/testsuite]

2018-04-16  Bill Schmidt  

PR target/85080
* gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-pr37194.c: Skip dump checks
if the target supports efficient unaligned storage accesses.


Modified:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-pr37194.c

[Bug target/85080] [8 regression] gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-pr37194.c fails starting with r248678

[wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85080

Bill Schmidt  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|WAITING |NEW

[Bug target/85080] [8 regression] gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-pr37194.c fails starting with r248678

[wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85080

--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt  ---
_Set8 wasn't supposed to be profitable before -- but this is an old test,
predating reasonable unaligned storage accesses with Power8 and later.  We
should have vectorized both loops as soon as that came along, but without
Robin's changes we missed that opportunity.  Both of them vectorizing now is
correct.

I'll see if I can alter the test to be executed only for targets with expensive
unaligned storage accesses.

[Bug target/85080] [8 regression] gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-pr37194.c fails starting with r248678

[wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85080

--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt  ---
I'll see if I can make time to look at this one soon.  I suspect the new
peeling costs check from Robin just made this test invalid.

[Bug target/85080] [8 regression] gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-pr37194.c fails starting with r248678

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85080

Richard Biener  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
   Last reconfirmed||2018-04-10
 CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
 Ever confirmed|0   |1

--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener  ---
Any reason why one but not the other loop is profitable to vectorize and
_which_ one was expected to be profitable (I guess ggSpectrum_Set8?).

[Bug target/85080] [8 regression] gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-pr37194.c fails starting with r248678

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85080

Richard Biener  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Target Milestone|--- |8.0

[Bug target/85080] [8 regression] gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-pr37194.c fails starting with r248678

[seurer at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85080

seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Target||powerpc64*-*-*
 CC||dje at gcc dot gnu.org,
   ||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
   Host||powerpc64*-*-*
  Build||powerpc64*-*-*

--- Comment #1 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Note that this fails on both Le and BE.