This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Patch] Testsuite fixes for failures caused by patch for PR 80925 - loop peeling and alignment
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 8:22 PM, Steve Ellcey <sellcey@cavium.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-07-28 at 09:47 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 12:16 AM, Steve Ellcey <sellcey@cavium.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Any comments from the power and/or vectorizer folks?
>> On one side I'm inclined to simplify the testsuite by adding
>> --param vect-max-peeling-for-alignment=0 in addition to
>> -fno-vect-cost-model we already pass and override that in the
>> tests that specifically exercise peeling for alignment (do we have
>> any?).
>> OTOH that would remove quite some testing coverage of prologue
>> peeling.
>>
>> So ideally testresults would be clean with both no such --param
>> and that --param added...
>>
>> I think most of the testcases you needed to adjust have nothing
>> to do with peeling for alignment thus adding this --param just for
>> those (and simplifying their dump scanning accordingly) is another
>> pragmatic option.
>>
>> Adding yet another target (vect_peel_align) is IMHO not good,
>> especially as this one depends on cost tuning and not HW
>> features, so it's impossible(?) to dynamically compute it
>> with a test compile for example (we _do_ want a clean
>> vect.exp with any vector HW / tuning switch you add).
>
> How about something like the following. I only fixed two of the tests,
> I can follow up with more if this approach seems reasonable. I tested
> this on aarch64 and x86_64.
Looks good to me.
Richard.
> Steve Ellcey
> sellcey@cavium.com
>
>
> 2017-07-28 Steve Ellcey <sellcey@cavium.com>
>
> PR tree-optimization/80925
> * gcc.dg/vect/no-section-anchors-vect-69.c: Add
> --param vect-max-peeling-for-alignment=0 option.
> Remove unaligned access and peeling checks.
> * gcc.dg/vect/section-anchors-vect-69.c: Ditto.