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
