[PATCH, PR52252] Vectorization for load/store groups of size 3.

[Evgeny Stupachenko]

Does the following fix ok?

2014-05-28  Evgeny Stupachenko  <evstupac@gmail.com>

       * gcc.dg/vect/pr52252-ld.c: Fix target and options for the test.

diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr52252-ld.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr52252-ld.c
index 6e3cb52..57e8468 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr52252-ld.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr52252-ld.c
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 /* { dg-do compile } */
-/* { dg-options "-O2 -g -ftree-vectorize -mssse3
-fdump-tree-vect-details" { target { i?86-*-* x86_64-*
-
+/* { dg-options "-O2 -g -ftree-vectorize -fdump-tree-vect-details"  } */
+/* { dg-additional-options "-mssse3" { target { i?86-*-* x86_64-*-* } } } */
 #define byte unsigned char

 void
@@ -26,5 +26,5 @@ matrix_mul (byte *in, byte *out, int size)
     }
 }

-/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "vectorized 1 loops" 1 "vect" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "vectorized 1 loops" 1 "vect" {
target { i?86-*-* x86_64-*-* } } }
 /* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "vect" } } */

On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 03:11:05PM +0200, Rainer Orth wrote:
>> Hi Evgeny,
>>
>> > Does the following fix ok?
>> >
>> > 2014-05-16  Evgeny Stupachenko  <evstupac@gmail.com>
>> >
>> >        * gcc.dg/vect/pr52252-ld.c: Fix target for the test.
>> >
>> >
>> > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr52252-ld.c
>> > b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr52252-ld.c
>> > index 6e3cb52..301433b 100644
>> > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr52252-ld.c
>> > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr52252-ld.c
>> > @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
>> >  /* { dg-do compile } */
>> > -/* { dg-options "-O2 -g -ftree-vectorize -mssse3
>> > -fdump-tree-vect-details" { target { i?86-*-* x86_64-*-* } } } */
>> > +/* { dg-options "-O2 -g -ftree-vectorize -mssse3 -fdump-tree-vect-details" } */
>> > +/* { dg-skip-if "why" { ! { x86_64-*-* i?86-*-* } } } */
>>
>> If the test is really x86 specific, move it to gcc.target/i386 and
>> remove the dg-skip-if.  Otherwise, add an explanation for skipping the
>> test on other targets to the first arg of dg-skip-if.  This is supposed
>> to be a comment stating why the test is skipped, not "why" literally.
>
> Well, I don't see anything i?86/x86_64 specific on the test.  What
> is specific is the -mssse3, which supposedly should be added through
> /* { dg-additional-options "-mssse3" { target { i?86-*-* x86_64-*-* } } } */
> and then perhaps the test might not necessarily be vectorized (so the
> dg-final line may need target guard as well.
> But, I see no reason not to try to compile this on other targets.
>
>         Jakub