On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 02:16:55PM +0100, Alex Coplan via Gcc-patches wrote:
> FYI, I'm seeing the new test failing on aarch64:
>
> PASS: gcc.dg/pr96573.c (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: gcc.dg/pr96573.c scan-tree-dump optimized "__builtin_bswap"
The vectorizer in the aarch64 case manages to emit a VEC_PERM_EXPR instead
(which is just as efficient).
So, do we want to go for the following (and/or perhaps also restrict the test to
a couple of targets where it works? In my last distro build it failed only
on aarch64-linux, while armv7hl-linux-gnueabi and
{i686,x86_64,powerpc64le,s390x}-linux were fine)?
2021-04-06 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
PR tree-optimization/96573
* gcc.dg/pr96573.c: Instead of __builtin_bswap accept also
VEC_PERM_EXPR with bswapping permutation.
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr96573.c.jj 2021-04-01 10:50:56.238629197 +0200
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr96573.c 2021-04-06 12:20:16.314520746 +0200
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
/* { dg-do compile { target { lp64 || ilp32 } } } */
/* { dg-require-effective-target bswap } */
/* { dg-options "-O3 -fdump-tree-optimized" } */
-/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "__builtin_bswap" "optimized" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "__builtin_bswap\|VEC_PERM_EXPR\[^\n\r]*7, 6,
5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0" "optimized" } } */
typedef __SIZE_TYPE__ size_t;
Jakub
