On 07/11/2023 12:03, juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote:
Sorry I made a mistake here.
Does it work for you ?
/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "vectorizing stmts using SLP" 2
"vect" { target { { vect_hw_misalign } && { ! vect512 } } } } } */
/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "vectorizing stmts using SLP" 4
"vect" { target { vect512 } } } } */
Tested on RVV is OK.
5 PASS on amdgcn also.
Andrew
------------------------------------------------------------------------
juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
*From:* Andrew Stubbs <mailto:a...@codesourcery.com>
*Date:* 2023-11-07 19:44
*To:* juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai <mailto:juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai>;
gcc-patches <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
*CC:* jeffreyalaw <mailto:jeffreya...@gmail.com>; rguenther
<mailto:rguent...@suse.de>
*Subject:* Re: [PATCH] test: Fix FAIL of pr97428.c for RVV
On 07/11/2023 11:24, juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote:
> Oh. Sorry maybe it's better like this:
>
> /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "vectorizing stmts using SLP" 2
> "vect" { target { { ! vect_hw_misalign } || { vect512 } } } } } */
> /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "vectorizing stmts using SLP" 4
> "vect" { target{ ! vect512 } } } } */
The conditions are backwards; this expects vect512 machines to match
twice. Also I think there's a space missing.
Andrew
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
>
> *From:* juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai <mailto:juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai>
> *Date:* 2023-11-07 19:23
> *To:* ams <mailto:a...@codesourcery.com>; gcc-patches
> <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
> *CC:* jeffreyalaw <mailto:jeffreya...@gmail.com>; rguenther
> <mailto:rguent...@suse.de>
> *Subject:* Re: Re: [PATCH] test: Fix FAIL of pr97428.c for RVV
> Do you mean this ?
>
> /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "vectorizing stmts using
SLP" 2
> "vect" { target { { ! vect_hw_misalign } || { vect512 } } } }
} */
> /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "vectorizing stmts using
SLP" 4
> "vect" { xfail { ! vect512 } } } } */
>
> Could you try again ? If it works for you, I am gonna send V2
patch
> to Richi.
>
> Thank you so much for help.
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
>
> *From:* Andrew Stubbs <mailto:a...@codesourcery.com>
> *Date:* 2023-11-07 19:21
> *To:* juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai <mailto:juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai>;
> gcc-patches <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
> *CC:* jeffreyalaw <mailto:jeffreya...@gmail.com>; rguenther
> <mailto:rguent...@suse.de>
> *Subject:* Re: [PATCH] test: Fix FAIL of pr97428.c for RVV
> On 07/11/2023 11:05, juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote:
> > Could you try this ?
> >
> > /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "vectorizing
stmts using
> SLP" 2
> > "vect" { xfail { { ! vect_hw_misalign } || { vect512 }
} } } } */
> > /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "vectorizing
stmts using
> SLP" 4
> > "vect" { xfail { ! vect512 } } } } */
> PASS: gcc.dg/vect/pr97428.c (test for excess errors)
> PASS: gcc.dg/vect/pr97428.c scan-tree-dump vect "Detected
> interleaving
> load of size 8"
> PASS: gcc.dg/vect/pr97428.c scan-tree-dump vect "Detected
> interleaving
> store of size 16"
> gcc.dg/vect/pr97428.c: pattern found 4 times
> XFAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr97428.c scan-tree-dump-times vect
"vectorizing
> stmts using SLP" 2
> PASS: gcc.dg/vect/pr97428.c scan-tree-dump-times vect
> "vectorizing stmts
> using SLP" 4
> PASS: gcc.dg/vect/pr97428.c scan-tree-dump-not vect "gap of 6
> elements"
> The passes are all correct (assuming that 4 matches are a
valid
> number),
> but if you have mutliple patterns with contractictory
> expectations then
> you probably want to use "target" rather than "xfail" to
avoid
> the noise
> (and invert the conditions, obviously).
> Andrew
> >
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
> >
> > *From:* Andrew Stubbs <mailto:a...@codesourcery.com>
> > *Date:* 2023-11-07 18:59
> > *To:* juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
<mailto:juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai>;
> > gcc-patches <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
> > *CC:* jeffreyalaw <mailto:jeffreya...@gmail.com>;
rguenther
> > <mailto:rguent...@suse.de>
> > *Subject:* Re: [PATCH] test: Fix FAIL of pr97428.c
for RVV
> > On 07/11/2023 10:10, juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote:
> > > So, this patch not only fixes RVV FAIL, but
also fixes
> GCN ?
> > Before the patch I have:
> > PASS: gcc.dg/vect/pr97428.c (test for excess errors)
> > PASS: gcc.dg/vect/pr97428.c scan-tree-dump vect
"Detected
> interleaving
> > load of size 8"
> > PASS: gcc.dg/vect/pr97428.c scan-tree-dump vect
"Detected
> interleaving
> > store of size 16"
> > gcc.dg/vect/pr97428.c: pattern found 4 times
> > XFAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr97428.c scan-tree-dump-times vect
> "vectorizing
> > stmts using SLP" 2
> > PASS: gcc.dg/vect/pr97428.c scan-tree-dump-not
vect "gap
> of 6 elements"
> > With the patch I now get:
> > PASS: gcc.dg/vect/pr97428.c (test for excess errors)
> > PASS: gcc.dg/vect/pr97428.c scan-tree-dump vect
"Detected
> interleaving
> > load of size 8"
> > PASS: gcc.dg/vect/pr97428.c scan-tree-dump vect
"Detected
> interleaving
> > store of size 16"
> > gcc.dg/vect/pr97428.c: pattern found 4 times
> > XFAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr97428.c scan-tree-dump-times vect
> "vectorizing
> > stmts using SLP" 2
> > XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/pr97428.c scan-tree-dump-times vect
> "vectorizing
> > stmts using SLP" 4
> > PASS: gcc.dg/vect/pr97428.c scan-tree-dump-not
vect "gap
> of 6 elements"
> > It's different, but not "fixed".
> > Andrew
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
> > >
> > > *From:* Andrew Stubbs
<mailto:a...@codesourcery.com>
> > > *Date:* 2023-11-07 18:09
> > > *To:* Juzhe-Zhong
<mailto:juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai>;
> > > gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
> > > *CC:* jeffreya...@gmail.com
> <mailto:jeffreya...@gmail.com>;
> > > rguent...@suse.de <mailto:rguent...@suse.de>
> > > *Subject:* Re: [PATCH] test: Fix FAIL of
pr97428.c
> for RVV
> > > On 07/11/2023 07:44, Juzhe-Zhong wrote:
> > > > This test shows vectorizing stmts using
SLP 4 times
> > instead of 2
> > > for RVV.
> > > > The reason is RVV has 512 bit vector.
> > > > Here is comparison between RVV ans ARM SVE:
> > > > https://godbolt.org/z/xc5KE5rPs
> > > >
> > > > But I notice AMDGCN also has 512 bit vector,
> seems this patch
> > > will cause FAIL in GCN ?
> > > >
> > > > Not sure whether GCN is 2 times or 4 times ?
> > > The pattern matches 4 times on GCN.
> > > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> > > >
> > > > * gcc.dg/vect/pr97428.c: Fix FAIL for RVV.
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr97428.c |
3 ++-
> > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1
deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git
a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr97428.c
> > > b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr97428.c
> > > > index ad6416096aa..352c9bf04a7 100644
> > > > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr97428.c
> > > > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr97428.c
> > > > @@ -43,5 +43,6 @@ void foo_i2(dcmlx4_t
dst[],
> const dcmlx_t
> > > src[], int n)
> > > > /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "Detected
> interleaving
> > store of
> > > size 16" "vect" } } */
> > > > /* We're not able to peel & apply
re-aligning
> to make
> > accesses
> > > well-aligned for !vect_hw_misalign,
> > > > but we could by peeling the stores for
> alignment and
> > > applying re-aligning loads. */
> > > > -/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times
> "vectorizing stmts using
> > > SLP" 2 "vect" { xfail { ! vect_hw_misalign
} } } } */
> > > > +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times
> "vectorizing stmts using
> > > SLP" 2 "vect" { xfail { { !
vect_hw_misalign } ||
> { vect512 }
> > } } } } */
> > > > +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times
> "vectorizing stmts using
> > > SLP" 4 "vect" { xfail { { !
vect_hw_misalign } ||
> { ! vect512
> > } } }
> > > } } */
> > > > /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-not
"gap of 6
> elements"
> > "vect" }
> > > } */
> > >
> >
>
