[Bug target/95218] [11 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/fma_run_double_1.c execution test since r11-455-g94f687bd9ae37ece

2020-05-22 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95218 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug target/95218] [11 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/fma_run_double_1.c execution test since r11-455-g94f687bd9ae37ece

2020-05-20 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95218 --- Comment #19 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7797f5ec58078523a452e5cf239596e13d77d885 commit r11-535-g7797f5ec58078523a452e5cf239596e13d77d885 Author: Uros Bizjak Date: Thu

[Bug target/95218] [11 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/fma_run_double_1.c execution test since r11-455-g94f687bd9ae37ece

2020-05-20 Thread ubizjak at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95218 --- Comment #18 from Uroš Bizjak --- Created attachment 48575 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48575=edit Patch in testing.

[Bug target/95218] [11 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/fma_run_double_1.c execution test since r11-455-g94f687bd9ae37ece

2020-05-20 Thread ubizjak at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95218 --- Comment #17 from Uroš Bizjak --- The problem is with commutative operands, these somehow confuse postreload pass. I'll commit partial revert that basically puts back: (define_insn_and_split "*2" - [(set (match_operand:VF 0

[Bug target/95218] [11 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/fma_run_double_1.c execution test since r11-455-g94f687bd9ae37ece

2020-05-20 Thread law at redhat dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95218 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot com --- Comment #16

[Bug target/95218] [11 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/fma_run_double_1.c execution test since r11-455-g94f687bd9ae37ece

2020-05-20 Thread ubizjak at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95218 --- Comment #15 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #13) > So perhaps pre-reload splitter of that into the UNSPEC form? Vector insns should be able to use pre-reload splitter, but scalar instructions depend on

[Bug target/95218] [11 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/fma_run_double_1.c execution test since r11-455-g94f687bd9ae37ece

2020-05-20 Thread ubizjak at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95218 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added CC|uros at gcc dot gnu.org| --- Comment #14 from Uroš Bizjak

[Bug target/95218] [11 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/fma_run_double_1.c execution test since r11-455-g94f687bd9ae37ece

2020-05-20 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95218 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug target/95218] [11 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/fma_run_double_1.c execution test since r11-455-g94f687bd9ae37ece

2020-05-20 Thread ubizjak at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95218 --- Comment #12 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #11) > Note a 'use' is not something that needs to be preserved, so > > (define_insn_and_split "*2" > [(set (match_operand:VF 0 "register_operand" "=x,v") >

[Bug target/95218] [11 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/fma_run_double_1.c execution test since r11-455-g94f687bd9ae37ece

2020-05-20 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95218 --- Comment #11 from Richard Biener --- Note a 'use' is not something that needs to be preserved, so (define_insn_and_split "*2" [(set (match_operand:VF 0 "register_operand" "=x,v") (absneg:VF (match_operand:VF 1

[Bug target/95218] [11 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/fma_run_double_1.c execution test since r11-455-g94f687bd9ae37ece

2020-05-20 Thread rguenther at suse dot de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95218 --- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 20 May 2020, ubizjak at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95218 > > Uroš Bizjak changed: > >What|Removed |Added >

[Bug target/95218] [11 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/fma_run_double_1.c execution test since r11-455-g94f687bd9ae37ece

2020-05-20 Thread ubizjak at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95218 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug target/95218] [11 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/fma_run_double_1.c execution test since r11-455-g94f687bd9ae37ece

2020-05-20 Thread marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95218 --- Comment #8 from Martin Liška --- There's partially reduced test-case: $ cat fma.i double res_test0101[] = { -3,1, 17,51,109, 197, 321, 487, 701, 969, 1297, 1691, 2157, 2701, 3329, 4047, 4861, 5777,

[Bug target/95218] [11 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/fma_run_double_1.c execution test since r11-455-g94f687bd9ae37ece

2020-05-20 Thread ubizjak at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95218 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at

[Bug target/95218] [11 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/fma_run_double_1.c execution test since r11-455-g94f687bd9ae37ece

2020-05-20 Thread ubizjak at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95218 --- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak --- I think I found the issue. Before the patch, we had: (insn 375 373 2574 7 (parallel [ (set (reg:V4DF 21 xmm1 [orig:1681 vect__45.441 ] [1681]) (neg:V4DF (mem/c:V4DF (plus:DI

[Bug target/95218] [11 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/fma_run_double_1.c execution test since r11-455-g94f687bd9ae37ece

2020-05-20 Thread marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95218 --- Comment #5 from Martin Liška --- Sure, doing that.

[Bug target/95218] [11 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/fma_run_double_1.c execution test since r11-455-g94f687bd9ae37ece

2020-05-20 Thread ubizjak at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95218 --- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3) > Started with r11-455-g94f687bd9ae37ece. It is not obvious from the referred patch what is going wrong here. Unfortunately, I have no FMA capable machine, can

[Bug target/95218] [11 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/fma_run_double_1.c execution test since r11-455-g94f687bd9ae37ece

2020-05-20 Thread marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95218 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug target/95218] [11 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/fma_run_double_1.c execution test

2020-05-20 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95218 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2020-05-20 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug target/95218] [11 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/fma_run_double_1.c execution test

2020-05-19 Thread msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95218 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill