On 1 February 2016 at 17:14, Kyrill Tkachov <kyrylo.tkac...@foss.arm.com> wrote:
> Indeed I see the new passes on armeb-none-eabi. > However, the new FAILs that I see are ICEs, not just vectorisation failures, > so they need to be looked at. > > The ICEs that I see are: > FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/vshuf-v4hi.c -O2 (internal compiler error) > FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/vshuf-v8qi.c -O2 (internal compiler error) Thanks. I hadn't seen these because I wasn't running the "expensive" tests. > Seems that the code in expr.c asserts that expand_vec_perm returned a > non-NULL result. It seems that my implementation of arm_evpc_neon_vuzp doesn't handle the one vector case correctly. I'm testing a fix. > I'll look at the patches in more detail, but in the meantime I notice that > there are some > GNU style issues that should be resolved, like starting comments with a > capital letter, > two spaces after full stop, two spaces between full stop and close comment, > as well as some > lines over 80 characters. The check_GNU_style.sh script in the contrib/ > directory can help > catch some (if not all) of these. OK, I'll fix those. > Also, can you please send any follow-up versions of the two patches as > separate emails, > so that we can more easily keep track of what's comment goes to which patch. Will do.
