On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Alan Lawrence
wrote:
> On 04/02/16 09:53, Dominik Vogt wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 11:41:02AM +, Alan Lawrence wrote:
>>>
>>> On 26/01/16 12:23, Dominik Vogt wrote:
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 01:13:28PM +, Alan Lawrence wrote:
>
> ..
On 04/02/16 09:53, Dominik Vogt wrote:
On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 11:41:02AM +, Alan Lawrence wrote:
On 26/01/16 12:23, Dominik Vogt wrote:
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 01:13:28PM +, Alan Lawrence wrote:
...the test passes with --param sra-max-scalarization-size-Ospeed.
Verified on aarch64 an
On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 11:41:02AM +, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> On 26/01/16 12:23, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 01:13:28PM +, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> >>...the test passes with --param sra-max-scalarization-size-Ospeed.
> >>
> >>Verified on aarch64 and with stage1 compiler for
On 26/01/16 12:23, Dominik Vogt wrote:
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 01:13:28PM +, Alan Lawrence wrote:
...the test passes with --param sra-max-scalarization-size-Ospeed.
Verified on aarch64 and with stage1 compiler for hppa, powerpc, sparc, s390.
How did you test this on s390? For me, the tes
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 01:13:28PM +, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> ...the test passes with --param sra-max-scalarization-size-Ospeed.
>
> Verified on aarch64 and with stage1 compiler for hppa, powerpc, sparc, s390.
How did you test this on s390? For me, the test still fails
unless I add -march=z13
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Alan Lawrence
wrote:
> It seems the conclusion on PowerPC is to XFAIL the test on powerpc64 (there
> will be XPASSes with -mcpu=power7 or -mcpu=power8). Which is what the
> original patch does
> (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-12/msg01979.html). So,
>
> P
It seems the conclusion on PowerPC is to XFAIL the test on powerpc64 (there will
be XPASSes with -mcpu=power7 or -mcpu=power8). Which is what the original patch
does (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-12/msg01979.html). So,
Ping.
Thanks, Alan
On 21/12/15 15:33, Bill Schmidt wrote:
On M
On 24/12/15 19:59, Mike Stump wrote:
On Dec 22, 2015, at 8:00 AM, Alan Lawrence wrote:
On 21/12/15 15:33, Bill Schmidt wrote:
Not on a stage1 compiler - check_p8vector_hw_available itself requires being
able to run executables - I'll check on gcc112. However, both look like they're
really abo
On Dec 22, 2015, at 8:00 AM, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> On 21/12/15 15:33, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>>>
>>> Not on a stage1 compiler - check_p8vector_hw_available itself requires being
>>> able to run executables - I'll check on gcc112. However, both look like
>>> they're
>>> really about the host (abili
On Tue, 2015-12-22 at 16:00 +, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> On 21/12/15 15:33, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> >>
> >> Not on a stage1 compiler - check_p8vector_hw_available itself requires
> >> being
> >> able to run executables - I'll check on gcc112. However, both look like
> >> they're
> >> really about
On 21/12/15 15:33, Bill Schmidt wrote:
Not on a stage1 compiler - check_p8vector_hw_available itself requires being
able to run executables - I'll check on gcc112. However, both look like they're
really about the host (ability to execute an asm instruction), not the target
(/ability for gcc to o
On 21/12/15 14:59, Bill Schmidt wrote:
On powerpc64, the test passes with -mcpu=power8 (the loop is vectorized as a
reduction); however, without that, similar code is generated to Alpha (the
vectorizer decides the reduction is not worthwhile without SIMD support), and
the test fails; hence, I've
On Mon, 2015-12-21 at 15:22 +, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> On 21/12/15 14:59, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On powerpc64, the test passes with -mcpu=power8 (the loop is vectorized
> >>> as a
> >>> reduction); however, without that, similar code is generated to Alpha (the
> >>> vectorizer decides
On 21/12/15 14:59, Bill Schmidt wrote:
On powerpc64, the test passes with -mcpu=power8 (the loop is vectorized as a
reduction); however, without that, similar code is generated to Alpha (the
vectorizer decides the reduction is not worthwhile without SIMD support), and
the test fails; hence, I've
On Mon, 2015-12-21 at 09:10 -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 8:13 AM, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> > ...the test passes with --param sra-max-scalarization-size-Ospeed.
> >
> > Verified on aarch64 and with stage1 compiler for hppa, powerpc, sparc, s390.
> >
> > On alpha, tree-optimi
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 8:13 AM, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> ...the test passes with --param sra-max-scalarization-size-Ospeed.
>
> Verified on aarch64 and with stage1 compiler for hppa, powerpc, sparc, s390.
>
> On alpha, tree-optimized is:
>
> MEM[(int[8] *)&a] = { 0, 1 };
> MEM[(int[8] *)&a + 8B
...the test passes with --param sra-max-scalarization-size-Ospeed.
Verified on aarch64 and with stage1 compiler for hppa, powerpc, sparc, s390.
On alpha, tree-optimized is:
MEM[(int[8] *)&a] = { 0, 1 };
MEM[(int[8] *)&a + 8B] = { 2, 3 };
MEM[(int[8] *)&a + 16B] = { 4, 5 };
MEM[(int[8] *)
17 matches
Mail list logo
