Hi James,
>> Unfortunately, the patch broke the test on sparc:
>>
>> FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-34.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects scan-tree-dump slp2
>> "basic block vectorized"
>> FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-34.c scan-tree-dump slp2 "basic block vectorized"
>>
>> While before the scan-tree-dump wasn't run due to missing vect_perm
>> support, it now fails.
>>
>> I believe you meant to just not xfail the test on aarch64* and arm*,
>
> Indeed.
>
>> which is what the following patch does. James, could you please test
>> it?
>
> Yes, that still does the right thing for me on aarch64-none-elf, and I think
> I now understand why.
>
> Before I touched it that said:
>
> /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "basic block vectorized" "slp2" { target
> vect_perm xfail *-*-* } } } */
>
> Which means "only run this statement for vect_perm targets, but expect it
> to fail on all targets".
>
> Then I changed it to say :
>
> /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "basic block vectorized" "slp2" { xfail {
> { vect_perm } && { ! { aarch64*-*-* arm*-*-* } } } } } } */
>
> Which means "always run this, but expect it to fail on vect_perm targets that
> are not arm/aarch64".
>
> Now you've changed it to say:
>
> /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "basic block vectorized" "slp2" { target
> vect_perm xfail { ! { aarch64*-*-* arm*-*-* } } } } } */
>
> Which means "only run this for vect perm targets, and expect it to fail
> if the target is not arm/aarch64.
>
> Thanks for the patch, it looks right to me and is what I was originally
> trying to write. Sorry for the sparc (and presumably other
> vect_int && !vect_perm targets) break.
no worries, and thanks for the confirmation. I know this
effective-target keyword business can be hard to get right ;-(
I've now installed the patch.
Rainer
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University
