Call to arms: testsuite failures on various targets

[Dorit Nuzman]

> FX Coudert wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I reviewed this afternoon the postings from the gcc-testresults
> > mailing-list for the past month, and we have a couple of gfortran
> > testsuite failures showing up on various targets. Could people with
> > access to said targets (possibly maintainers) please file PRs in
> > bugzilla for each testcase, reporting the error message and/or
> > backtrace? (I'd be happy to be added to the Cc list of these)
> >
> > * ia64-suse-linux-gnu: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-4.f90
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-4.f90  -O  scan-tree-dump-times Alignment of
> access
> forced using peeling 1
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-4.f90  -O  scan-tree-dump-times Vectorizing
> an unali
> gned access 1
>

These tests should xfail on "vect_no_align" targets. On targets that
support misaligned accesses we use peeling to align two datarefs, and
generate a misaligned memory-access for a third dataref. But on targets
that do not support misaligned accesses I expect we just use versioning
with runtime alignment test. Does the following pass for you (I just added
"{ xfail vect_no_align }" to the two failing tests)?


Index: vect-4.f90
===================================================================
--- vect-4.f90  (revision 123409)
+++ vect-4.f90  (working copy)
@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@
 END

 ! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "vectorized 1 loops" 1 "vect" } }
-! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced using
peeling" 1 "vect" } }
-! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 1
"vect" } }
+! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced using
peeling" 1 "vect" { xfail vect_no_align } } }
+! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 1
"vect" { xfail vect_no_align } } }
 ! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "accesses have the same alignment." 1
"vect" } }
 ! { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "vect" } }

> This happens on all reported ia64 targets, including mine.  What is
> expected here?  There is no vectorization on ia64, no reason for
> peeling.

apparently there is vectorization taking place because the first test
passes:
'scan-tree-dump-times "vectorized 1 loops" 1 "vect" '

dorit

> The compilation has no problem, and there is no report
> generated.  As far as I know, the vectorization options are ignored.
> Without unrolling, of course, gfortran doesn't optimize the loop at all,
> but I assume that's a different question.