This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Testsuite patch for gcc.dg/vect/no-vfa-vect-43.c on IA64


On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Ira Rosen <IRAR@il.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>
> gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org wrote on 22/04/2009 12:22:47:
>
>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Steve Ellcey <sje@cup.hp.com> wrote:
>> > The alias improvement branch, r145494, is causing a failure of
>> > gcc.dg/vect/no-vfa-vect-43.c on IA64 HP-UX and Linux. ?Looking at the
>> > test changes done with the alias improvement checkin, the number of
>> > expected vectorized loops was increased from 1 to 2 for this test but
>> > the number of loops that are versioned for alignment requirements was
>> > left at 1 and should now be 2. ?This patch changes the number of
> expected
>> > versionings to 2 and allows the test to pass on IA64 HP-UX and Linux.
>> >
>> > It might look like we should only have to version the loop in main2 and
>> > not the one in main1 because the input arrays in main1 have aligned
>> > attributes on them. ?But the output array in main1 does not have an
>> > alignment attribute and GCC doesn't seem to allow alignment attributes
>> > on function arguments so there should be 2 versionings.
>> >
>> > Tested on IA64 HP-UX and Linux, OK for checkin?
>>
>> Hmm. ?But that will now FAIL on for example x86_64 where the alignment
>> is probably ensured by peeling(?).
>
> Right, but I don't think it will fail on x86_64 because the versioning
> check is only for target vect_no_align.

Oh, ok.  The patch is ok then.

Thanks,
Richard.

> Thanks,
> Ira
>
>
>> I suggest to instead do
>>
>> /* ?{ dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced
>> using versioning" 1 "vect" { target vect_no_align } { xfail ia64-*-* }
>> ?} } */
>> /* ?{ dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced
>> using versioning" 2 "vect" { target ia64-*-* } } } */
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Richard.
>>
>> > Steve Ellcey
>> > sje@cup.hp.com
>> >
>> >
>> > 2009-04-21 ?Steve Ellcey ?<sje@cup.hp.com>
>> >
>> > ? ? ? ?PR testsuite/39623
>> > ? ? ? ?* gcc.dg/vect/no-vfa-vect-43.c Fix vect_no_align check.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Index: gcc.dg/vect/no-vfa-vect-43.c
>> > ===================================================================
>> > --- gcc.dg/vect/no-vfa-vect-43.c ? ? ? ?(revision 146528)
>> > +++ gcc.dg/vect/no-vfa-vect-43.c ? ? ? ?(working copy)
>> > @@ -76,5 +76,5 @@ int main (void)
>> > ?}
>> >
>> > ?/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "vectorized 1 loops" 2 "vect" } }
> */
>> > -/* ?{ dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced
>> using versioning" 1 "vect" { target vect_no_align } } } */
>> > +/* ?{ dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced
>> using versioning" 2 "vect" { target vect_no_align } } } */
>> > ?/* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "vect" } } */
>> >
>
>


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]