‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Thursday, March 5, 2020 6:59 PM, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 05, 2020 at 05:04:16PM +, GT wrote:
>
> > At the top of that file is dejagnu directive:
> > /* { dg-require-effective-target vect_int } */
> >
> > 1. How do I check to see if vect_int is defined? I suspect it as the reason
> > the test isn't run.
> >
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=blob;f=gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp;h=ca3895c22690dc15b6c2beffb53ea6f39ad80b38;hb=HEAD#l3258
>
> (It is always true for powerpc, since we no longer support the
> linuxpaired target).
>
> You can look in the generated gcc.log, and if what you are looking for
> isn't there, you can pass --debug to runtest as well, and look in the
> relevant dbg.log . But first look in target-supports.exp if it is
> something trivial ;-)
Thanks. target-supports.exp needed to set vect_simd_clones for the PPC64
system we are adding support for.
After that change, results of < make check RUNTESTFLAGS="vect.exp=*simd*" >
improve.
Prior to change: 36 tests come back as UNSUPPORTED. Post change: There are no
longer
any UNSUPPORTED. However, 16 tests now FAIL.
Line 8070 in gcc/expr.c is causing ICE. The assertion is 'gcc_assert (MEM_P
(result))'.
Just above it is a comment explaining the assertion's failure as being either a
front-end bug or a tree optimizer bug. The bug being failure to mark a DECL as
TREE_ADDRESSABLE.
I am attempting to compare results in gdb sessions: the first on an x86_64
system where
a SIMD testcase passes, the 2nd on a PPC64 system where the same testcase
fails. I'm
looking to identify the point at which the implementations diverge. It's been a
slog so
far.
Does anyone have a better idea of how to proceed? Perhaps the comment
explaining the
assertion is less cryptic to you?
Bert.
