On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 9:26 PM, Bill Schmidt
<wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-04-27 at 14:23 +0800, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 1:42 AM, Bill Schmidt
>> <wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> > Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-33.c
>> > ===================================================================
>> > --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-33.c (revision 221118)
>> > +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-33.c (working copy)
>> > @@ -36,9 +36,10 @@ int main (void)
>> > return main1 ();
>> > }
>> >
>> > +/* vect_hw_misalign && { ! vect64 } */
>> >
>> > /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "vectorized 1 loops" 1 "vect" } } */
>> > -/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "Vectorizing an unaligned access" "vect" {
>> > target { vect_hw_misalign && { {! vect64} || vect_multiple_sizes } } } } }
>> > */
>> > +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "Vectorizing an unaligned access" "vect" {
>> > target { { { ! powerpc*-*-* } && vect_hw_misalign } && { { ! vect64 } ||
>> > vect_multiple_sizes } } } } } */
>> > /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "Alignment of access forced using peeling"
>> > "vect" { target { vector_alignment_reachable && { vect64 && {!
>> > vect_multiple_sizes} } } } } } */
>> > /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced using
>> > versioning" 1 "vect" { target { { {! vector_alignment_reachable} || {!
>> > vect64} } && {! vect_hw_misalign} } } } } */
>> > /* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "vect" } } */
>>
>> Hi Bill,
>> With this change, the test case is skipped on aarch64 now. Since it
>> passed before, Is it expected to act like this on 64bit platforms?
>
> Hi Bin,
>
> No, that's a mistake on my part -- thanks for the report! That first
> added line was not intended to be part of the patch:
>
> +/* vect_hw_misalign && { ! vect64 } */
>
> Please try removing that line and verify that the patch succeeds again
> for ARM. Assuming so, I'll prepare a patch to fix this.
>
> It looks like this mistake was introduced only in this particular test,
> but please let me know if you see any other anomalies.
Hi Bill,
I chased the wrong branch. The test disappeared on fsf-48 branch in
out build, rather than trunk. I guess it's not your patch's fault.
Will follow up and get back to you later.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Thanks,
bin
>
> Thanks very much!
>
> Bill
>>
>> PASS->NA: gcc.dg/vect/vect-33.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects
>> scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 0
>> PASS->NA: gcc.dg/vect/vect-33.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing
>> an unaligned access" 0
>>
>> Thanks,
>> bin
>>
>
>
