Hi, Jeff. Address your comments and fix on V2: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-October/632239.html
I think it look reasonable good for a long term maintenance now. Ok for trunk ? juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai From: Jeff Law Date: 2023-10-07 23:09 To: Juzhe-Zhong; gcc-patches CC: rguenther; rdapp.gcc Subject: Re: [PATCH] TEST: Fix vect_cond_arith_* dump checks for RVV On 10/7/23 05:45, Juzhe-Zhong wrote: > This patch fixes the following dumple FAILs: > FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-cond-arith-2.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects scan-tree-dump > optimized " = \\.COND_SUB" > FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-cond-arith-2.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects scan-tree-dump > vect " = \\.COND_ADD" > FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-cond-arith-2.c scan-tree-dump optimized " = > \\.COND_SUB" > FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-cond-arith-2.c scan-tree-dump vect " = \\.COND_ADD" > FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-cond-arith-4.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects scan-tree-dump > optimized " = \\.COND_ADD" > FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-cond-arith-4.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects scan-tree-dump > optimized " = \\.COND_MUL" > FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-cond-arith-4.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects scan-tree-dump > optimized " = \\.COND_RDIV" > FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-cond-arith-4.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects scan-tree-dump > optimized " = \\.COND_SUB" > FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-cond-arith-4.c scan-tree-dump optimized " = > \\.COND_ADD" > FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-cond-arith-4.c scan-tree-dump optimized " = > \\.COND_MUL" > FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-cond-arith-4.c scan-tree-dump optimized " = > \\.COND_RDIV" > FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-cond-arith-4.c scan-tree-dump optimized " = > \\.COND_SUB" > FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-cond-arith-5.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects scan-tree-dump > optimized " = \\.COND_ADD" > FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-cond-arith-5.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects scan-tree-dump > optimized " = \\.COND_MUL" > FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-cond-arith-5.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects scan-tree-dump > optimized " = \\.COND_RDIV" > FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-cond-arith-5.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects scan-tree-dump > optimized " = \\.COND_SUB" > FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-cond-arith-5.c scan-tree-dump optimized " = > \\.COND_ADD" > FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-cond-arith-5.c scan-tree-dump optimized " = > \\.COND_MUL" > FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-cond-arith-5.c scan-tree-dump optimized " = > \\.COND_RDIV" > FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-cond-arith-5.c scan-tree-dump optimized " = > \\.COND_SUB" > FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-cond-arith-6.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects > scan-tree-dump-times optimized " = \\.COND_ADD" 1 > FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-cond-arith-6.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects > scan-tree-dump-times optimized " = \\.COND_MUL" 1 > FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-cond-arith-6.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects > scan-tree-dump-times optimized " = \\.COND_RDIV" 1 > FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-cond-arith-6.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects > scan-tree-dump-times optimized " = \\.COND_SUB" 1 > FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-cond-arith-6.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized " = > \\.COND_ADD" 1 > FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-cond-arith-6.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized " = > \\.COND_MUL" 1 > FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-cond-arith-6.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized " = > \\.COND_RDIV" 1 > FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-cond-arith-6.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized " = > \\.COND_SUB" 1 > > For RVV, the expected dumple IR is COND_LEN_* pattern. > > Also, we are still failing at this check: > > FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-cond-arith-2.c scan-tree-dump optimized " = > \\.COND_LEN_SUB" > FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-cond-arith-2.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects scan-tree-dump > optimized " = \\.COND_LEN_SUB" > > Since we have a known bug in GIMPLE_FOLD that Robin is working on it. > > @Robin: Plz make sure vect-cond-arith-2.c passes with this patch and your bug > fix patch. > > Ok for trunk ? > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-cond-arith-2.c: Fix dump check for RVV. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-cond-arith-4.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-cond-arith-5.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-cond-arith-6.c: Ditto. Would it make more sense to adjust the regexp so that it matched the standard form as well as the LEN form? So for example we could have a regexp that matched COND_ADD and COND_LEN_ADD. Just wondering if that'll be better from a long term maintenance standpoint. Jeff
