Re: [PATCH] [PR99581] Define relaxed memory and use it for aarch64

2021-03-23 Thread Vladimir Makarov via Gcc-patches
On 2021-03-23 5:33 p.m., Richard Sandiford wrote: Vladimir Makarov writes: On 2021-03-23 2:24 p.m., Vladimir Makarov wrote: Here is the patch solving the problem. Also although asm tests only checks assembler code, a lot of them use dg-require-effective-target and therefore can not be tes

Re: [PATCH] [PR99581] Define relaxed memory and use it for aarch64

2021-03-23 Thread Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches
Vladimir Makarov writes: > On 2021-03-23 2:24 p.m., Vladimir Makarov wrote: >> >> On 2021-03-23 1:55 p.m., Christophe Lyon wrote: >>> On Tue, 23 Mar 2021 at 17:54, Vladimir Makarov >>> wrote: Can you check? Sorry, I've rerun (cd gcc && make check-gcc) on gcc114 for today trun

Re: [PATCH] [PR99581] Define relaxed memory and use it for aarch64

2021-03-23 Thread Vladimir Makarov via Gcc-patches
On 2021-03-23 2:24 p.m., Vladimir Makarov wrote: On 2021-03-23 1:55 p.m., Christophe Lyon wrote: On Tue, 23 Mar 2021 at 17:54, Vladimir Makarov wrote: Can you check? Sorry, I've rerun (cd gcc && make check-gcc) on gcc114 for today trunk and I don't see the regressions mentioned above. Can

Re: [PATCH] [PR99581] Define relaxed memory and use it for aarch64

2021-03-23 Thread Vladimir Makarov via Gcc-patches
On 2021-03-23 1:55 p.m., Christophe Lyon wrote: On Tue, 23 Mar 2021 at 17:54, Vladimir Makarov wrote: Can you check? Sorry, I've rerun (cd gcc && make check-gcc) on gcc114 for today trunk and I don't see the regressions mentioned above. Can you check this too and if I am doing something wr

Re: [PATCH] [PR99581] Define relaxed memory and use it for aarch64

2021-03-23 Thread Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches
On Tue, 23 Mar 2021 at 17:54, Vladimir Makarov wrote: > > > On 2021-03-23 9:07 a.m., Christophe Lyon wrote: > > On Mon, 22 Mar 2021 at 18:38, Vladimir Makarov via Gcc-patches > > wrote: > >> > > Hi, > > > > This patch causes regressions (116) on aarch64: > > gcc.target/aarch64/sve/acle/aarch64-sv

Re: [PATCH] [PR99581] Define relaxed memory and use it for aarch64

2021-03-23 Thread Vladimir Makarov via Gcc-patches
On 2021-03-23 9:07 a.m., Christophe Lyon wrote: On Mon, 22 Mar 2021 at 18:38, Vladimir Makarov via Gcc-patches wrote: Hi, This patch causes regressions (116) on aarch64: gcc.target/aarch64/sve/acle/aarch64-sve-acle-asm.exp gcc.target/aarch64/sve/acle/asm/ld1ro_bf16.c -std=gnu90 -O2 -

Re: [PATCH] [PR99581] Define relaxed memory and use it for aarch64

2021-03-23 Thread Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches
On Mon, 22 Mar 2021 at 18:38, Vladimir Makarov via Gcc-patches wrote: > > > On 2021-03-21 8:51 a.m., Richard Sandiford wrote: > > Vladimir Makarov writes: > >> On 2021-03-19 11:42 a.m., Richard Sandiford wrote: > >>> Vladimir Makarov via Gcc-patches writes: > The following patch solves P1 P

Re: [PATCH] [PR99581] Define relaxed memory and use it for aarch64

2021-03-22 Thread Vladimir Makarov via Gcc-patches
On 2021-03-21 8:51 a.m., Richard Sandiford wrote: Vladimir Makarov writes: On 2021-03-19 11:42 a.m., Richard Sandiford wrote: Vladimir Makarov via Gcc-patches writes: The following patch solves P1 PR99581     https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99581 The patch was successfully

Re: [PATCH] [PR99581] Define relaxed memory and use it for aarch64

2021-03-21 Thread Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches
Vladimir Makarov writes: > On 2021-03-19 11:42 a.m., Richard Sandiford wrote: >> Vladimir Makarov via Gcc-patches writes: >>> The following patch solves P1 PR99581 >>> >>>     https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99581 >>> >>> The patch was successfully tested and bootstrapped on x86-64

Re: [PATCH] [PR99581] Define relaxed memory and use it for aarch64

2021-03-19 Thread Vladimir Makarov via Gcc-patches
On 2021-03-19 11:42 a.m., Richard Sandiford wrote: Vladimir Makarov via Gcc-patches writes: The following patch solves P1 PR99581     https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99581 The patch was successfully tested and bootstrapped on x86-64, ppc64le, aarch64. Is it ok for the trunk?

Re: [PATCH] [PR99581] Define relaxed memory and use it for aarch64

2021-03-19 Thread Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 03:42:42PM +, Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches wrote: > Vladimir Makarov via Gcc-patches writes: > > The following patch solves P1 PR99581 > > > >     https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99581 > > > > The patch was successfully tested and bootstrapped on x86

Re: [PATCH] [PR99581] Define relaxed memory and use it for aarch64

2021-03-19 Thread Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches
Vladimir Makarov via Gcc-patches writes: > The following patch solves P1 PR99581 > >     https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99581 > > The patch was successfully tested and bootstrapped on x86-64, ppc64le, > aarch64. > > Is it ok for the trunk? As I mentioned in bugzilla though, the mo

Re: [PATCH] [PR99581] Define relaxed memory and use it for aarch64

2021-03-19 Thread Vladimir Makarov via Gcc-patches
On 2021-03-19 11:03 a.m., Alex Coplan wrote: Hi Vladimir, On 19/03/2021 10:21, Vladimir Makarov via Gcc-patches wrote: The following patch solves P1 PR99581     https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99581 The patch was successfully tested and bootstrapped on x86-64, ppc64le, aarch64

Re: [PATCH] [PR99581] Define relaxed memory and use it for aarch64

2021-03-19 Thread Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 03:03:42PM +, Alex Coplan via Gcc-patches wrote: > Hi Vladimir, > > On 19/03/2021 10:21, Vladimir Makarov via Gcc-patches wrote: > > The following patch solves P1 PR99581 > > > >     https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99581 > > > > The patch was successfully

Re: [PATCH] [PR99581] Define relaxed memory and use it for aarch64

2021-03-19 Thread Alex Coplan via Gcc-patches
Hi Vladimir, On 19/03/2021 10:21, Vladimir Makarov via Gcc-patches wrote: > The following patch solves P1 PR99581 > >     https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99581 > > The patch was successfully tested and bootstrapped on x86-64, ppc64le, > aarch64. > > Is it ok for the trunk? Can we