On Tue, 23 Mar 2021 at 17:54, Vladimir Makarov <vmaka...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On 2021-03-23 9:07 a.m., Christophe Lyon wrote: > > On Mon, 22 Mar 2021 at 18:38, Vladimir Makarov via Gcc-patches > > <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > >> > > Hi, > > > > This patch causes regressions (116) on aarch64: > > gcc.target/aarch64/sve/acle/aarch64-sve-acle-asm.exp > > gcc.target/aarch64/sve/acle/asm/ld1ro_bf16.c -std=gnu90 -O2 > > -fno-schedule-insns -DCHECK_ASM --save-temps -DTEST_FULL > > check-function-bodies ld1ro_bf16_112 > > gcc.target/aarch64/sve/acle/asm/ld1ro_bf16.c -std=gnu90 -O2 > > -fno-schedule-insns -DCHECK_ASM --save-temps -DTEST_FULL > > check-function-bodies ld1ro_bf16_16 > > gcc.target/aarch64/sve/acle/asm/ld1ro_bf16.c -std=gnu90 -O2 > > -fno-schedule-insns -DCHECK_ASM --save-temps -DTEST_FULL > > check-function-bodies ld1ro_bf16_index > > gcc.target/aarch64/sve/acle/asm/ld1ro_bf16.c -std=gnu90 -O2 > > -fno-schedule-insns -DCHECK_ASM --save-temps -DTEST_FULL > > check-function-bodies ld1ro_bf16_m128 > > gcc.target/aarch64/sve/acle/asm/ld1ro_bf16.c -std=gnu90 -O2 > > -fno-schedule-insns -DCHECK_ASM --save-temps -DTEST_FULL > > check-function-bodies ld1ro_bf16_m16 > > [....] > > > > Not sure why you didn't see them during your testing? > > > > Can you check? > > > Sorry, I've rerun (cd gcc && make check-gcc) on gcc114 for today trunk > and I don't see the regressions mentioned above. > > Can you check this too and if I am doing something wrong for testing, > please point me out. >
I'm testing with cross-compilers with ST hat, but I'm not the only one seeing these failures, see gcc-testresults. Andreas and in Linaro we are both testing native compilers. These tests are driven by aarch64-sve-acle-asm.exp Is it possible that the binutils version matters? I'm using 2.34 for the cross-toolchains. Christophe
