On 12/7/23 09:33, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2023 12:58:03 +0100 (CET)
From: Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de>
On Sat, 2 Dec 2023, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2023 08:07:14 +0100 (CET)
From: Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de>
I read from your messages that the testcases pass on arm*-*-*?
Yes: they pass (currently XPASS) on arm-eabi and
arm-unknown-linux-gnueabi, default configurations. But,
scev-3 and -5 fail with for example -mcpu=cortex-r5
I see. As said, the testcases test for "cost" things, so that we
"regressed" might mean we really "regressed" here. Even the x86 -m32
result is questionable.
Of course whether using a single IV makes sense for all archs is
unknown.
Btw, if we turn the testcases into ones that are (sub-)target
specific then we want to again use C code as input.
I think at this point we've lost track and I'm juggling between
removing the testcases or moving them to a place they succeed
(with some specific -mcpu=?)
Richard.
So to not drop the ball(s) on this, here's a patch with your
first alternative: remove them.
Ok?
OK, but give Richard until Monday PM to chime in if he wants to try and
save them by putting them into a target specific directory.
jeff
