On Jun 07 2017, Robin Dapp wrote:
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2017-06/msg00297.html
>
> What machine is this running on?
On a G5.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something comp
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2017-06/msg00297.html
What machine is this running on? power4 BE? The tests are compiled with
--with-cpu-64=power4 apparently. I cannot reproduce this on power7
-m32. Is it possible to get more detailed logs or machine access to
reproduce?
Regards
Robin
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2017-06/msg00297.html
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."
> Patch 6 breaks no-vfa-vect-57.c on powerpc.
Which CPU model (power6/7/8?) and which compile options (-maltivec/
-mpower8-vector?) have been used for running and compiling the test? As
discussed in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925
this has an influence on the cost function and
> No regressions on s390x, x86-64 and ppc64. Bootstrapped.
Patch 6 breaks no-vfa-vect-57.c on powerpc.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 1:54 PM, Robin Dapp wrote:
>> So what did actually change? I'd rather not diff the diffs. Can you
>> provide an incremental change, aka p6 that would apply to the
>> previous series instead?
>
> -p6.diff attached which also addresses Richard's remark regarding vf/2.
> Not
> So what did actually change? I'd rather not diff the diffs. Can you
> provide an incremental change, aka p6 that would apply to the
> previous series instead?
-p6.diff attached which also addresses Richard's remark regarding vf/2.
Note that this applies to the old series but the old series its
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 5:57 PM, Robin Dapp wrote:
> The last version of the patch series caused some regressions for ppc64.
> This was largely due to incorrect handling of unsupportable alignment
> and should be fixed with the new version.
>
> p2 and p5 have not changed but I'm posting the whole
The last version of the patch series caused some regressions for ppc64.
This was largely due to incorrect handling of unsupportable alignment
and should be fixed with the new version.
p2 and p5 have not changed but I'm posting the whole series again for
reference. p1 only changed comment wording,
