On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 9:41 PM Jeff Law <jeffreya...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 5/31/24 7:44 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > > When vectorizing an early break loop with LENs (do we miss some > > check here to disallow this?) we can end up deciding to insert > > stmts after a GIMPLE_COND when doing SLP scheduling and trying > > to be conservative with placing of stmts only dependent on > > the implicit loop mask/len. The following avoids this, I guess > > it's not perfect but it does the job fixing some observed > > RISC-V regression. > > > > * tree-vect-slp.cc (vect_schedule_slp_node): For mask/len > > loops make sure to not advance the insertion iterator > > beyond a GIMPLE_COND. > Note this patch may depend on others in the series. I don't think the > pre-commit CI tester is particularly good at handling that, particularly > if the other patches in the series don't have the tagging for the > pre-commit CI. > > What most likely happened is this patch and only this patch was applied > against the baseline for testing.
I fixed that last week (5/16) so we shouldn't be seeing that issue anymore. If you're still seeing it please let me know and I'd be interested to dig in. >From checking the patch_urls artifact it looks like all 5 patches were applied to 46d931b. It's an old baseline so that might be the issue. We've been having hard-to-diagnose network issues on some of the newly-added CI boxes. Fingers crossed that's resolved now. I'll rerun this patch tomorrow once the new baseline is generated. > There are (manual) ways to get things re-tested. I'm hoping Patrick and > Edwin automate that procedure relatively soon. Until that happens you > have to email patchworks...@rivosinc.com with a URL for the patch in > patchwork that you want retested. Ditto - treat it as if it's automated. When I see it I'll reply with a link to the rerun. I'll start to look at wiring it up to an automation next week. I also have the ability to manually trigger on patches not labelled 'RISC-V' so feel free to ping for that as well. Patrick > Jeff >
