http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61153
Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> Since commit 210216 "Neon intrinsics TLC - Replace intrinsics with GNU C
> implementations", I have noticed regressions in the following tests:
> gcc.target/arm/neon/vbicQs16.c scan-assembler vbic[ \t]+[qQ][0-9]+,
> [qQ][0-9]+, [qQ][0-9]+!?([ \t]+@[a-zA-Z0-9 ]+)?\n
> gcc.target/arm/neon/vbicQs32.c scan-assembler vbic[ \t]+[qQ][0-9]+,
> [qQ][0-9]+, [qQ][0-9]+!?([ \t]+@[a-zA-Z0-9 ]+)?\n
> gcc.target/arm/neon/vbicQs64.c scan-assembler vbic[ \t]+[qQ][0-9]+,
> [qQ][0-9]+, [qQ][0-9]+!?([ \t]+@[a-zA-Z0-9 ]+)?\n
> gcc.target/arm/neon/vbicQs8.c scan-assembler vbic[ \t]+[qQ][0-9]+,
> [qQ][0-9]+, [qQ][0-9]+!?([ \t]+@[a-zA-Z0-9 ]+)?\n
> gcc.target/arm/neon/vbicQu16.c scan-assembler vbic[ \t]+[qQ][0-9]+,
> [qQ][0-9]+, [qQ][0-9]+!?([ \t]+@[a-zA-Z0-9 ]+)?\n
> gcc.target/arm/neon/vbicQu32.c scan-assembler vbic[ \t]+[qQ][0-9]+,
> [qQ][0-9]+, [qQ][0-9]+!?([ \t]+@[a-zA-Z0-9 ]+)?\n
> gcc.target/arm/neon/vbicQu64.c scan-assembler vbic[ \t]+[qQ][0-9]+,
> [qQ][0-9]+, [qQ][0-9]+!?([ \t]+@[a-zA-Z0-9 ]+)?\n
> gcc.target/arm/neon/vbicQu8.c scan-assembler vbic[ \t]+[qQ][0-9]+,
> [qQ][0-9]+, [qQ][0-9]+!?([ \t]+@[a-zA-Z0-9 ]+)?\n
> gcc.target/arm/neon/vbics16.c scan-assembler vbic[ \t]+[dD][0-9]+,
> [dD][0-9]+, [dD][0-9]+!?([ \t]+@[a-zA-Z0-9 ]+)?\n
> gcc.target/arm/neon/vbics32.c scan-assembler vbic[ \t]+[dD][0-9]+,
> [dD][0-9]+, [dD][0-9]+!?([ \t]+@[a-zA-Z0-9 ]+)?\n
> gcc.target/arm/neon/vbics8.c scan-assembler vbic[ \t]+[dD][0-9]+,
> [dD][0-9]+, [dD][0-9]+!?([ \t]+@[a-zA-Z0-9 ]+)?\n
> gcc.target/arm/neon/vbicu16.c scan-assembler vbic[ \t]+[dD][0-9]+,
> [dD][0-9]+, [dD][0-9]+!?([ \t]+@[a-zA-Z0-9 ]+)?\n
> gcc.target/arm/neon/vbicu32.c scan-assembler vbic[ \t]+[dD][0-9]+,
> [dD][0-9]+, [dD][0-9]+!?([ \t]+@[a-zA-Z0-9 ]+)?\n
> gcc.target/arm/neon/vbicu8.c scan-assembler vbic[ \t]+[dD][0-9]+,
> [dD][0-9]+, [dD][0-9]+!?([ \t]+@[a-zA-Z0-9 ]+)?\n
> gcc.target/arm/neon/vornQs16.c scan-assembler vorn[ \t]+[qQ][0-9]+,
> [qQ][0-9]+, [qQ][0-9]+!?([ \t]+@[a-zA-Z0-9 ]+)?\n
> gcc.target/arm/neon/vornQs32.c scan-assembler vorn[ \t]+[qQ][0-9]+,
> [qQ][0-9]+, [qQ][0-9]+!?([ \t]+@[a-zA-Z0-9 ]+)?\n
> gcc.target/arm/neon/vornQs64.c scan-assembler vorn[ \t]+[qQ][0-9]+,
> [qQ][0-9]+, [qQ][0-9]+!?([ \t]+@[a-zA-Z0-9 ]+)?\n
> gcc.target/arm/neon/vornQs8.c scan-assembler vorn[ \t]+[qQ][0-9]+,
> [qQ][0-9]+, [qQ][0-9]+!?([ \t]+@[a-zA-Z0-9 ]+)?\n
> gcc.target/arm/neon/vornQu16.c scan-assembler vorn[ \t]+[qQ][0-9]+,
> [qQ][0-9]+, [qQ][0-9]+!?([ \t]+@[a-zA-Z0-9 ]+)?\n
> gcc.target/arm/neon/vornQu32.c scan-assembler vorn[ \t]+[qQ][0-9]+,
> [qQ][0-9]+, [qQ][0-9]+!?([ \t]+@[a-zA-Z0-9 ]+)?\n
> gcc.target/arm/neon/vornQu64.c scan-assembler vorn[ \t]+[qQ][0-9]+,
> [qQ][0-9]+, [qQ][0-9]+!?([ \t]+@[a-zA-Z0-9 ]+)?\n
> gcc.target/arm/neon/vornQu8.c scan-assembler vorn[ \t]+[qQ][0-9]+,
> [qQ][0-9]+, [qQ][0-9]+!?([ \t]+@[a-zA-Z0-9 ]+)?\n
> gcc.target/arm/neon/vorns16.c scan-assembler vorn[ \t]+[dD][0-9]+,
> [dD][0-9]+, [dD][0-9]+!?([ \t]+@[a-zA-Z0-9 ]+)?\n
> gcc.target/arm/neon/vorns32.c scan-assembler vorn[ \t]+[dD][0-9]+,
> [dD][0-9]+, [dD][0-9]+!?([ \t]+@[a-zA-Z0-9 ]+)?\n
> gcc.target/arm/neon/vorns8.c scan-assembler vorn[ \t]+[dD][0-9]+,
> [dD][0-9]+, [dD][0-9]+!?([ \t]+@[a-zA-Z0-9 ]+)?\n
> gcc.target/arm/neon/vornu16.c scan-assembler vorn[ \t]+[dD][0-9]+,
> [dD][0-9]+, [dD][0-9]+!?([ \t]+@[a-zA-Z0-9 ]+)?\n
> gcc.target/arm/neon/vornu32.c scan-assembler vorn[ \t]+[dD][0-9]+,
> [dD][0-9]+, [dD][0-9]+!?([ \t]+@[a-zA-Z0-9 ]+)?\n
> gcc.target/arm/neon/vornu8.c scan-assembler vorn[ \t]+[dD][0-9]+,
> [dD][0-9]+, [dD][0-9]+!?([ \t]+@[a-zA-Z0-9 ]+)?\n
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.
I'm expecting your run time tests to go in and for cases where we need them, we
may want to put out some kind of basic scan assembler tests for them.
I'm tempted to mark this as invalid.
>
> with many --with-target/--with-cpu/--with-fpu configurations as can be seen
> on
> http://cbuild.validation.linaro.org/build/cross-validation/gcc/210216/report-
> build-info.html
