[Bug tree-optimization/88919] New test case gcc.dg/vect/pr88903-1.c in r268076 fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88919 --- Comment #18 from Tamar Christina --- Ah no worries, I was just wondering if there was some explicit action that was wanted from me :)
[Bug tree-optimization/88919] New test case gcc.dg/vect/pr88903-1.c in r268076 fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88919 --- Comment #17 from Bill Seurer --- On 02/07/19 09:47, tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88919 > > Tamar Christina changed: > > What|Removed |Added > > CC|tamar.christina at arm dot com | > > --- Comment #15 from Tamar Christina --- > You did :) You added my Arm email address, I was already on CC based on my > gcc.gnu email. > > Removing it since I'm getting the mails twice :) > I looked back through my browser history and found this: Bugzilla cannot make a conclusive match for one or more of the names and/or email addresses you entered on the previous page. Please examine the lists of potential matches below and select the ones you want, or go back to the previous page to revise the names you entered. CC: tamar matched: ...list of email addrs including your arm one... I'd never seen this before and just let bugzilla choose. I have no idea why that happened as it was my reply that showed the test cases now succeeding and I did not add to nor change the CC list there. It wasn't my intent to add that email address and I apologize.
[Bug tree-optimization/88919] New test case gcc.dg/vect/pr88903-1.c in r268076 fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88919 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #16 from Bill Schmidt --- Terrific. Closing as fixed. Thanks, all.
[Bug tree-optimization/88919] New test case gcc.dg/vect/pr88903-1.c in r268076 fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88919 Tamar Christina changed: What|Removed |Added CC|tamar.christina at arm dot com | --- Comment #15 from Tamar Christina --- You did :) You added my Arm email address, I was already on CC based on my gcc.gnu email. Removing it since I'm getting the mails twice :)
[Bug tree-optimization/88919] New test case gcc.dg/vect/pr88903-1.c in r268076 fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88919 --- Comment #14 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org --- I did not add you to the CC list.
[Bug tree-optimization/88919] New test case gcc.dg/vect/pr88903-1.c in r268076 fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88919 --- Comment #13 from Tamar Christina --- Hmm? I don't understand Bill Seurer, was there something you wanted me to do here?
[Bug tree-optimization/88919] New test case gcc.dg/vect/pr88903-1.c in r268076 fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88919 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tamar.christina at arm dot com --- Comment #12 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org --- New failures (update from 268604 to 268611): New passes: FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr88903-1.c execution test FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr88903-1.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects execution test Looks good!
[Bug tree-optimization/88919] New test case gcc.dg/vect/pr88903-1.c in r268076 fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88919 --- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt --- Thanks! Bill Seurer, can you please verify this is fixed with GCC 8?
[Bug tree-optimization/88919] New test case gcc.dg/vect/pr88903-1.c in r268076 fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88919 --- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 6 Feb 2019, wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88919 > > --- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt --- > My mistake. The patch did land on 1-22. I was looking at the wrong ChangeLog > (this is a testsuite fix). Looks like that patch is needed to be backported > to > 8 now? Done.
[Bug tree-optimization/88919] New test case gcc.dg/vect/pr88903-1.c in r268076 fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88919 --- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 6 Feb 2019, wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88919 > > Bill Schmidt changed: > >What|Removed |Added > > CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org > > --- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt --- > I see that Tamar Christina's patch (linked above) was approved but has not > ever > landed? Can you apply it?
[Bug tree-optimization/88919] New test case gcc.dg/vect/pr88903-1.c in r268076 fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88919 --- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt --- My mistake. The patch did land on 1-22. I was looking at the wrong ChangeLog (this is a testsuite fix). Looks like that patch is needed to be backported to 8 now?
[Bug tree-optimization/88919] New test case gcc.dg/vect/pr88903-1.c in r268076 fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88919 --- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt --- But this test stopped failing on January 21, so maybe the patch was applied without the ChangeLog?
[Bug tree-optimization/88919] New test case gcc.dg/vect/pr88903-1.c in r268076 fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88919 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt --- I see that Tamar Christina's patch (linked above) was approved but has not ever landed?
[Bug tree-optimization/88919] New test case gcc.dg/vect/pr88903-1.c in r268076 fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88919 --- Comment #5 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org --- Note that the change was backported to gcc 8 (r268578) and the test case fails there now the same way.
[Bug tree-optimization/88919] New test case gcc.dg/vect/pr88903-1.c in r268076 fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88919 --- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 22 Jan 2019, clyon at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88919 > > Christophe Lyon changed: > >What|Removed |Added > > CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org > > --- Comment #3 from Christophe Lyon --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2) > > Sandra posted a patch that will probably fix this (out-of-bound shift > > values). > > Do you mean https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-01/msg01207.html ? Yes.
[Bug tree-optimization/88919] New test case gcc.dg/vect/pr88903-1.c in r268076 fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88919 Christophe Lyon changed: What|Removed |Added CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 from Christophe Lyon --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2) > Sandra posted a patch that will probably fix this (out-of-bound shift > values). Do you mean https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-01/msg01207.html ?
[Bug tree-optimization/88919] New test case gcc.dg/vect/pr88903-1.c in r268076 fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88919 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- Sandra posted a patch that will probably fix this (out-of-bound shift values).
[Bug tree-optimization/88919] New test case gcc.dg/vect/pr88903-1.c in r268076 fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88919
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed||2019-01-21
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Passes for me on x86_64-linux. Can you investigate a bit more? The key
observation should be that compared to before the rev. the loop
for (int i = 0; i < 512; ++i)
{
x[2*i] = x[2*i] << (i+1);
x[2*i+1] = x[2*i+1] << (i+1);
}
should be vectorized using a vector << vector shift (rather than
vector << scalar).
