https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925
--- Comment #33 from Rainer Orth ---
Author: ro
Date: Tue Aug 7 08:58:20 2018
New Revision: 263353
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263353&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix gcc.dg/vect/no-section-anchors-vect-69.c on SPARC etc. (PR
tree-optimizati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925
--- Comment #32 from Rainer Orth ---
Author: ro
Date: Tue Aug 7 08:51:29 2018
New Revision: 263352
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263352&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix gcc.dg/vect/no-section-anchors-vect-69.c on SPARC etc. (PR
tree-optimizati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925
--- Comment #31 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 44498
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44498&action=edit
Proposed patch for gcc.dg/vect/no-section-anchors-vect-69.c failure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #30 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925
--- Comment #28 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
FWIW I am still seeing these fail:
FAIL: g++.dg/vect/slp-pr56812.cc -std=c++11 scan-tree-dump-times slp1 "basic
block vectorized" 1 (found 0 times)
FAIL: g++.dg/vect/slp-pr56812.cc -std=c++14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925
--- Comment #27 from Steve Ellcey ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #26)
> Fixed?
I see still these vect failures on aarch64:
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr65947-14.c execution test
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr65947-14.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects execut
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|7.0 |8.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925
--- Comment #25 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Wed Sep 13 18:06:36 2017
New Revision: 252723
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=252723&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-09-13 Steve Ellcey
PR tree-optimization/80925
* gfo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925
--- Comment #24 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Wed Sep 13 16:14:53 2017
New Revision: 252228
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=252228&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-08-01 Steve Ellcey
PR tree-optimization/80925
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925
--- Comment #23 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Wed Sep 13 16:09:53 2017
New Revision: 252203
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=252203&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-07-31 Steve Ellcey
PR tree-optimization/80925
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925
--- Comment #22 from Steve Ellcey ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #21)
> I think this change caused regressions on armeb-none-linux-gnueabihf
> --with-cpu=cortex-a9 --with-fpu=neon-fp16 (works OK
> --with-fpu=vfpv3-d16-fp16)
Ranie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|7.0 |8.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925
--- Comment #20 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Tue Aug 1 15:37:22 2017
New Revision: 250783
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250783&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-08-01 Steve Ellcey
PR tree-optimization/80925
* gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925
--- Comment #19 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Mon Jul 31 21:44:34 2017
New Revision: 250752
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250752&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-07-31 Steve Ellcey
PR tree-optimization/80925
* gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925
--- Comment #18 from Steve Ellcey ---
See https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-07/msg01862.html for a proposed
patch to update the tests.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925
--- Comment #17 from Bill Schmidt ---
That is the usual approach, and there are already some predicates involving
alignment. It's a matter of going through and figuring out which ones will do
what's needed. I spent some tiresome weeks working t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925
--- Comment #16 from rdapp at linux dot vnet.ibm.com ---
(In reply to seurer from comment #14)
> spawn -ignore SIGHUP /home/seurer/gcc/build/gcc-test/gcc/xgcc
> -B/home/seurer/gcc/build/gcc-test/gcc/
> /home/seurer/gcc/gcc-test/gcc/testsuite/gcc.d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski ---
These started to fail on aarch64-*-* at the same time as powerpc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925
--- Comment #14 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
spawn -ignore SIGHUP /home/seurer/gcc/build/gcc-test/gcc/xgcc
-B/home/seurer/gcc/build/gcc-test/gcc/
/home/seurer/gcc/gcc-test/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-33-big-array.c
-fno-diagnostics-show-c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925
--- Comment #13 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 41475
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41475&action=edit
Dump from -fdump-tree-vect-details for test case
gcc.dg/vect/vect-33-big-array.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925
--- Comment #12 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hmmm, they don't all fail on power6/7 (costmodel-pr37194.c for instance). I
attached a dump from -fdump-tree-vect-details for one that does (power6).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925
--- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt ---
Well, I should be more careful -- the behavior you see is probably reasonable
for these runtime tests, since the testing infrastructure isn't aware that you
built for an older architecture on the POWER8 it wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925
--- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to rdapp from comment #9)
> > Therefore, whenever the vector tests are run on a power8 CPU,
> TARGET_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_VSX = 1, no matter the --with-cpu. This would
> also explain why I didn't see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925
--- Comment #9 from rdapp at linux dot vnet.ibm.com ---
I built --with-cpu=power7 and still see TARGET_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_VSX == true
in the backend which causes unaligned stores to have costs of 1. On my power7
system, TARGET_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
The cost modeling doesn't explain failures on P6 and P7, I guess. For P8 we
consider unaligned loads to be the same cost as aligned loads (this is a small
lie because of boundary-crossing costs, but these are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925
--- Comment #7 from rdapp at linux dot vnet.ibm.com ---
I could reproduce the fails on a power8 machine now.
Looking at the vect-28.c FAIL now - the loop to be vectorized is:
for (i = 0; i < N; i++)
{
ia[i+off] = 5;
}
It still ge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925
--- Comment #6 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I see them still for r248738.
My configure is pretty simple:
--enable-languages=c,fortran,c++ --with-cpu=power8 --disable-bootstrap
and it's the same on both BE and LE. I am using binutils 2.27
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925
--- Comment #5 from rdapp at linux dot vnet.ibm.com ---
I quickly built trunk without bootstrap on power7 BE
("--enable-languages="c,c++,fortran" --disable-multilib --disable-bootstrap")
and still get no new fails. Do I need other build parameter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925
--- Comment #3 from rdapp at linux dot vnet.ibm.com ---
Strange, my tests didn't show new failures on Power7. I'll have a look, perhaps
the build settings were wrong.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
34 matches
Mail list logo
