[Bug testsuite/65594] libgomp.graphite/force-parallel-6.c timeout

2015-03-27 Thread vries at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65594 vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|--

[Bug testsuite/65594] libgomp.graphite/force-parallel-6.c timeout

2015-03-27 Thread vries at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65594 --- Comment #9 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: vries Date: Fri Mar 27 12:10:07 2015 New Revision: 221727 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221727&root=gcc&view=rev Log: Scale down libgomp.graphite/force-parallel-6.c 2015-03-27 Tom

[Bug testsuite/65594] libgomp.graphite/force-parallel-6.c timeout

2015-03-27 Thread vries at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65594 --- Comment #10 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: vries Date: Fri Mar 27 12:10:16 2015 New Revision: 221728 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221728&root=gcc&view=rev Log: Add verification to libgomp.graphite/force-parallel-6.c 2015-0

[Bug testsuite/65594] libgomp.graphite/force-parallel-6.c timeout

2015-03-27 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65594 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- LGTM, thanks.

[Bug testsuite/65594] libgomp.graphite/force-parallel-6.c timeout

2015-03-27 Thread vries at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65594 --- Comment #7 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5) > The test doesn't verify the result anyway. I've written some initialization and verification code: ... index e9e4b56..cbc5735 100644 --- a/libgomp/test

[Bug testsuite/65594] libgomp.graphite/force-parallel-6.c timeout

2015-03-27 Thread vries at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65594 --- Comment #6 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5) > And use M instead of N in the outer two loops and define M to something > lower (100, 50 or similar)? Yep, that works: ... index 5071630..e9e4b56 1006

[Bug testsuite/65594] libgomp.graphite/force-parallel-6.c timeout

2015-03-27 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65594 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- And use M instead of N in the outer two loops and define M to something lower (100, 50 or similar)? The test doesn't verify the result anyway.

[Bug testsuite/65594] libgomp.graphite/force-parallel-6.c timeout

2015-03-27 Thread vries at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65594 --- Comment #4 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2) > Well, GOMP_parallel doesn't always create new threads, but still it has some > synchronization overhead etc. IMNSHO the testcase should be scaled down

[Bug testsuite/65594] libgomp.graphite/force-parallel-6.c timeout

2015-03-27 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65594 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- Patch to do so preapproved for trunk, if the testcase is still auto-parallelized in that case.

[Bug testsuite/65594] libgomp.graphite/force-parallel-6.c timeout

2015-03-27 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65594 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug testsuite/65594] libgomp.graphite/force-parallel-6.c timeout

2015-03-27 Thread vries at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65594 --- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org --- The testcase contains one loop nest with 3 loops with iteration counts 500, so the inner loop body is executed 125.000.000 times: ... #define N 500 int X[2*N], Y[2*N], B[2*N]; int A[2*N][2*N], C[2*