On May 23, 2024, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Apr 29, 2024, "Kewen.Lin" wrote:
>> I think you can still push the patch as the testing just exposes
>> another issue.
> ACK, thanks, I've just confirmed that the problem I reported on
> ppc64el-linux-gnu didn't come up when testing on ppc64-vx7r2 wi
On Apr 29, 2024, "Kewen.Lin" wrote:
> I think you can still push the patch as the testing just exposes
> another issue.
ACK, thanks, I've just confirmed that the problem I reported on
ppc64el-linux-gnu didn't come up when testing on ppc64-vx7r2 with a
non-power8 emulated cpu, so I'm going to ins
on 2024/4/29 14:28, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Apr 28, 2024, "Kewen.Lin" wrote:
>
>> Nit: Maybe add a prefix "testsuite: ".
>
> ACK
>
>>>
>>> From: Kewen Lin
>
>> Thanks, you can just drop this. :)
>
> I've turned it into Co-Authored-By, since you insist.
>
> But unfortunately with the pa
On Apr 28, 2024, "Kewen.Lin" wrote:
> Nit: Maybe add a prefix "testsuite: ".
ACK
>>
>> From: Kewen Lin
> Thanks, you can just drop this. :)
I've turned it into Co-Authored-By, since you insist.
But unfortunately with the patch it still fails when testing for
-mcpu=power7 on ppc64le-linux-
Hi,
on 2024/4/28 16:14, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Apr 24, 2024, "Kewen.Lin" wrote:
>
>> For !has_arch_pwr7 case, it still adopts peeling but as the comment (one
>> line above)
>> shows the original intention of this case is to expect not profitable for
>> peeling
>> so it's not expected to b
On Apr 24, 2024, "Kewen.Lin" wrote:
> For !has_arch_pwr7 case, it still adopts peeling but as the comment (one line
> above)
> shows the original intention of this case is to expect not profitable for
> peeling
> so it's not expected to be handled here, can we just tweak the loop bound
> inste
Hi,
on 2024/4/22 17:28, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Ping?
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-March/566525.html
>
>
> This test expects vectorization at power8+ because strict alignment is
> not required for vectors. For power7, vectorization is not to take
> place because it's not de
Ping?
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-March/566525.html
This test expects vectorization at power8+ because strict alignment is
not required for vectors. For power7, vectorization is not to take
place because it's not deemed profitable: 12 iterations would be
required to make it so
This test expects vectorization at power8+ because strict alignment is
not required for vectors. For power7, vectorization is not to take
place because it's not deemed profitable: 12 iterations would be
required to make it so.
But for power6 and below, the test's 10 iterations are enough to mak
