This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PR83004: Accidental change to pr81136.c for VECTOR_BITS==128
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, richard dot sandiford at linaro dot org
- Cc: andrey dot y dot guskov at intel dot com
- Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 15:45:47 +0100
- Subject: Re: PR83004: Accidental change to pr81136.c for VECTOR_BITS==128
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <8760a21wzd.fsf@linaro.org> <CAFiYyc1NGYD6uJQFxabOh_-U0eGmhDLjFLEt_MZ5FdYieNfj6w@mail.gmail.com> <20171122140346.GV14653@tucnak> <874lpmqtwo.fsf@linaro.org>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 02:17:59PM +0000, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> writes:
> > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 02:51:09PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Richard Sandiford
> >> <richard.sandiford@linaro.org> wrote:
> >> > r254589 was supposed to leave tests unchanged for the default setting
> >> > of VECTOR_BITS, but I must have got my sums wrong on pr81136.c.
> >> > Sorry for the breakage.
> >> >
> >> > Tested on aarch64-linux-gnu, x86_64-linux-gnu and powerpc64le-linux-gnu,
> >> > OK to install?
> >>
> >> Ok.
> >
> > That will still FAIL e.g. with -march=skylake-avx512 or -march=knl
> > (at least when not preferring 256 or 128 bit vectors), those would need
> > ALIGNMENT 64.
>
> Yeah, the real fix for AVX512 is to define VECTOR_BITS. And I'd have
> thought even AVX2 would need to define it to get clean results on other
> tests. But the patch that introduced VECTOR_BITS just wasn't supposed
> to be changing the default behaviour in the way that I'd accidentally
> done here.
>
> Do you know what the vect.exp results are like for 256-bit and 512-bit
> vectors on x86_64? Like I said in the PR, I was surprised we were the
Dunno, but can try it for -march=haswell easily (or we could look up
gcc-testresults). I think some of the Intel folks are surely testing
regularly with --with-arch=haswell configured compiler, judging from many
bugreports about tests from the testsuite that only fail with -march=haswell.
Jakub