> The CI shows some scan failures in vls/avg-[456].c and > widen/vec-avg-rv32gcv.c.
Looks like the CI cannot tell patch series? There are 3 patches and the CI will run for each one. Of course, the first one will have scan failure due to expanding change, but the second one reconciles them. Finally the third one will have all test passed as below, I think it indicates all tests are good IMO. Feel free to correct me if any misunderstandings. rivoscibot/toolchain-ci-rivos-test success Testing passed It looks like the CI can test once after all patches of series? Pan -----Original Message----- From: Li, Pan2 Sent: Friday, May 30, 2025 9:11 PM To: Robin Dapp <rdapp....@gmail.com>; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Cc: juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai; kito.ch...@gmail.com; jeffreya...@gmail.com; Chen, Ken <ken.c...@intel.com>; Liu, Hongtao <hongtao....@intel.com> Subject: RE: [PATCH v1 0/3] Refine the avg_ceil with fixed point vaadd > The CI shows some scan failures in vls/avg-[456].c and > widen/vec-avg-rv32gcv.c. Oops, I should run all test locally without additional failures before sent out, let me double check about it. > Also, the lint check complains about this line: Sure. Pan -----Original Message----- From: Robin Dapp <rdapp....@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2025 3:42 PM To: Li, Pan2 <pan2...@intel.com>; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Cc: juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai; kito.ch...@gmail.com; jeffreya...@gmail.com; rdapp....@gmail.com; Chen, Ken <ken.c...@intel.com>; Liu, Hongtao <hongtao....@intel.com>; Robin Dapp <rdapp....@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] Refine the avg_ceil with fixed point vaadd > Similar to the avg_floor, the avg_ceil has the rounding mode > towards +inf, while the vaadd.vv has the rnu which totally match > the sematics. From RVV spec, the fixed vaadd.vv with rnu, The CI shows some scan failures in vls/avg-[456].c and widen/vec-avg-rv32gcv.c. Also, the lint check complains about this line: riscv_vector::emit_vlmax_insn (icode, riscv_vector::BINARY_OP_VXRM_RNU, operands); being to long. OK with those two fixed, thanks. For the record. When I first introduced these patterns I wasn't really aware of VXRM's properties, i.e. that we can just set it before a loop without restoring it. Therefore I implemented it using regular vector ops. Juzhe's patch used vaaddu for the unsigned variants but left the signed ones as is. I believe that was due to concerns about the general averaging idiom for signed integers (where we need to round towards zero), but not the special avg_ceil and avg_floor touched here. The latter ones are a good match for vaadd, the general case is not. -- Regards Robin
