[Bug testsuite/40359] New: [4.5 Regression] Revision 148211 caused a lot of failures in the vect test suite.

[Bug testsuite/40359] New: [4.5 Regression] Revision 148211 caused a lot of failures in the vect test suite.

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr]

On i686-apple-darwin9, revision 148211 caused a lot of failures in the vect
test suite with both -m32 and -m64:

< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/i386/costmodel-vect-31.c scan-tree-dump-times
vect "vectorization not profitable" 1
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/i386/costmodel-vect-31.c scan-tree-dump-times
vect "vectorized 3 loops" 1
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/i386/costmodel-vect-33.c scan-tree-dump-times
vect "vectorization not profitable" 1
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr25413.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 0
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr25413.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vector alignment may
not be reachable" 1
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr25413.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "not vectorized:
unsupported unaligned store" 1
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-109.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "not vectorized:
unsupported unaligned store" 2
< XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/vect-26.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing an
unaligned access" 1
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-26.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of access
forced using peeling" 1
< XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/vect-28.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing an
unaligned access" 1
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-28.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of access
forced using peeling" 1
< XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/vect-33.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing an
unaligned access" 1
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-33.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of access
forced using peeling" 1
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-42.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing an
unaligned access" 4
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-42.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of access
forced using peeling" 1
< XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/vect-44.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing an
unaligned access" 3
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-44.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing an
unaligned access" 2
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-44.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of access
forced using peeling" 1
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-50.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing an
unaligned access" 2
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-50.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of access
forced using peeling" 1
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-54.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing an
unaligned access" 0
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-54.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of access
forced using peeling" 1
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-58.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing an
unaligned access" 0
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-58.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of access
forced using peeling" 1
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-70.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing an
unaligned access" 0
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-70.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of access
forced using peeling" 1
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-87.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing an
unaligned access" 0
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-87.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of access
forced using peeling" 1
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-88.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing an
unaligned access" 0
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-88.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of access
forced using peeling" 1
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-89.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing an
unaligned access" 0
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-89.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of access
forced using peeling" 1
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-91.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of access
forced using peeling" 3
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-92.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing an
unaligned access" 0
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-92.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of access
forced using peeling" 3
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-93.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of access
forced using peeling" 3
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-93.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing an
unaligned access" 1
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-95.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing an
unaligned access" 2
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-95.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of access
forced using versioning" 2
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-96.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of access
forced using peeling" 1
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-align-1.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of
access forced using versioning" 1
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-align-2.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of
access forced using versioning" 1
< XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/vect-multitypes-1.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized
1 loops" 2
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-multitypes-1.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1
loops" 1
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-multitypes-1.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of
access forced using peeling" 1
< XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/vect-multitypes-1.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing
an unaligned access" 4
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-multitypes-1.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing
an unaligned access" 2
< XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/vect-multitypes-4.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized
1 loops" 2
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-multitypes-4.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1
loops" 1
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-multitypes-4.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of
access forced using peeling" 1
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/slp-25.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing an
unaligned access" 0
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/slp-25.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of access
forced using peeling" 2
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/no-section-anchors-vect-31.c scan-tree-dump-times vect
"Vectorizing an unaligned access" 0
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/no-section-anchors-vect-31.c scan-tree-dump-times vect
"Alignment of access forced using peeling" 2
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/no-section-anchors-vect-64.c scan-tree-dump-times vect
"Vectorizing an unaligned access" 0
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/no-section-anchors-vect-64.c scan-tree-dump-times vect
"Alignment of access forced using peeling" 2
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/no-section-anchors-vect-66.c scan-tree-dump-times vect
"Vectorizing an unaligned access" 0
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/no-section-anchors-vect-66.c scan-tree-dump-times vect
"Alignment of access forced using peeling" 1
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/no-section-anchors-vect-68.c scan-tree-dump-times vect
"Vectorizing an unaligned access" 0
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/no-section-anchors-vect-68.c scan-tree-dump-times vect
"Alignment of access forced using peeling" 2
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/no-section-anchors-vect-69.c scan-tree-dump-times vect
"Vectorizing an unaligned access" 0
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/no-section-anchors-vect-69.c scan-tree-dump-times vect
"Alignment of access forced using peeling" 2
< XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/no-scevccp-outer-8.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "OUTER LOOP
VECTORIZED." 1

< FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-2.f90  -O  scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment
of access forced using peeling" 3
< FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-2.f90  -O  scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing
an unaligned access" 2
< FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-3.f90  -O  scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment
of access forced using peeling" 1
< FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-3.f90  -O  scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing
an unaligned access" 1
< FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-4.f90  -O  scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment
of access forced using peeling" 1
< FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-4.f90  -O  scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing
an unaligned access" 1
< FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-5.f90  -O  scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment
of access forced using peeling" 1
< FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-5.f90  -O  scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing
an unaligned access" 1

See also:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2009-06/msg00044.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2009-06/msg00043.html


-- 
           Summary: [4.5 Regression] Revision 148211 caused a lot of
                    failures in the vect test suite.
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.5.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: testsuite
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40359

[Bug testsuite/40359] [4.5 Regression] Revision 148211 caused a lot of failures in the vect test suite.

[eres at il dot ibm dot com]

------- Comment #1 from eres at il dot ibm dot com  2009-06-06 11:00 -------
It might be that i686 should be added to
check_effective_target_vect_hw_misalign.

Please try the following patch:

Index: testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
===================================================================
--- testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp   (revision 148211)
+++ testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp   (working copy)
@@ -2231,7 +2231,8 @@ proc check_effective_target_vect_hw_misa
         verbose "check_effective_target_vect_hw_misalign: using cached result"
2
     } else {
         set et_vect_hw_misalign_saved 0
-       if { [istarget x86_64-*-*] } {
+       if { ([istarget x86_64-*-*]
+            || [istarget i?86-*-*]) } {
           set et_vect_hw_misalign_saved 1
        }
     }


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40359

[Bug testsuite/40359] [4.5 Regression] Revision 148211 caused a lot of failures in the vect test suite.

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr]

------- Comment #2 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2009-06-06 15:49 -------
Subject: Re:  [4.5 Regression] Revision 148211 caused a
 lot of failures in the vect test suite.

> It might be that i686 should be added to check_effective_target_vect_hw_misalign.

It does, but I still have 9 extra failures:

FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr25413.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 0
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr25413.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vector alignment may not
be reachable" 1
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr25413.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "not vectorized:
unsupported unaligned store" 1
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-58.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing an unaligned
access" 0
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-58.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of access
forced using peeling" 1
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-88.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing an unaligned
access" 0
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-88.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of access
forced using peeling" 1
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/no-section-anchors-vect-66.c scan-tree-dump-times vect
"Vectorizing an unaligned access" 0
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/no-section-anchors-vect-66.c scan-tree-dump-times vect
"Alignment of access forced using peeling" 1

Thanks for the patch.

Dominique


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40359

[Bug testsuite/40359] [4.5 Regression] Revision 148211 caused a lot of failures in the vect test suite.

[eres at il dot ibm dot com]

------- Comment #3 from eres at il dot ibm dot com  2009-06-06 16:43 -------
Created an attachment (id=17957)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17957&action=view)
A patch to fix the fails


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40359

[Bug testsuite/40359] [4.5 Regression] Revision 148211 caused a lot of failures in the vect test suite.

[eres at il dot ibm dot com]

------- Comment #4 from eres at il dot ibm dot com  2009-06-06 16:46 -------
(In reply to comment #3)
> Created an attachment (id=17957)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17957&action=view) [edit]
> A patch to fix the fails

I appreciate it if you could test whether the attached patch fixes the
failures.
If so, I'll submit it.

Thanks.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40359

[Bug testsuite/40359] [4.5 Regression] Revision 148211 caused a lot of failures in the vect test suite.

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr]

------- Comment #5 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2009-06-06 17:24 -------
With the patch in comment #3 the failures are gone:

make -k check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="vect.exp=*.c --target_board=unix'{,-m64}'"

...
                === gcc Summary ===

# of expected passes            2829
# of expected failures          216
# of unsupported tests          18

tested on i686-apple-darwin9.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40359

[Bug testsuite/40359] [4.5 Regression] Revision 148211 caused a lot of failures in the vect test suite.

[eres at il dot ibm dot com]

------- Comment #6 from eres at il dot ibm dot com  2009-06-06 17:32 -------
(In reply to comment #5)
> With the patch in comment #3 the failures are gone:
> make -k check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="vect.exp=*.c --target_board=unix'{,-m64}'"

Thanks for checking, I'll submit the patch then.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40359

[Bug testsuite/40359] [4.5 Regression] Revision 148211 caused a lot of failures in the vect test suite.

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr]

------- Comment #7 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2009-06-07 06:37 -------
On powerpc-apple-darwin9 with -m64, but not with default -m32, I also see the
following new failures:

ERROR: gcc.dg/vect/vect-42.c: error executing dg-final: syntax error in target
selector "target !vect_hw_misalign"
UNRESOLVED: gcc.dg/vect/vect-42.c: error executing dg-final: syntax error in
target selector "target !vect_hw_misalign"
ERROR: gcc.dg/vect/vect-50.c: error executing dg-final: syntax error in target
selector "target !vect_no_align"
UNRESOLVED: gcc.dg/vect/vect-50.c: error executing dg-final: syntax error in
target selector "target !vect_no_align"
ERROR: gcc.dg/vect/vect-96.c: error executing dg-final: syntax error in target
selector "target !vect_hw_misalign"
UNRESOLVED: gcc.dg/vect/vect-96.c: error executing dg-final: syntax error in
target selector "target !vect_hw_misalign"


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40359

[Bug testsuite/40359] [4.5 Regression] Revision 148211 caused a lot of failures in the vect test suite.

[eres at il dot ibm dot com]

------- Comment #8 from eres at il dot ibm dot com  2009-06-07 07:12 -------
Created an attachment (id=17959)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17959&action=view)
patch to fix syntax errors in tests

This patch should fix the syntax errors.  
I'll sumbit it also if the problem is solved.

Thanks again,
Revital


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40359

[Bug testsuite/40359] [4.5 Regression] Revision 148211 caused a lot of failures in the vect test suite.

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr]

------- Comment #9 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2009-06-07 07:48 -------
The patch in comment #8 fixes the failures reported in comment #7. I now see
(powerpc-apple-darwin9 with -m64):

FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-42.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of access
forced using versioning" 3


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40359

[Bug testsuite/40359] [4.5 Regression] Revision 148211 caused a lot of failures in the vect test suite.

[eres at il dot ibm dot com]

------- Comment #10 from eres at il dot ibm dot com  2009-06-07 10:51 -------
(In reply to comment #9)
> The patch in comment #8 fixes the failures reported in comment #7. I now see
> (powerpc-apple-darwin9 with -m64):
> FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-42.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of access
> forced using versioning" 3

I can not reproduce this failure; I appreciate it if you could post the
vectorizer dump file (produced with -fdump-tree-vect-details flag) thanks.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40359

[Bug testsuite/40359] [4.5 Regression] Revision 148211 caused a lot of failures in the vect test suite.

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr]

------- Comment #11 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2009-06-12 12:00 -------
Created an attachment (id=17988)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17988&action=view)
dump file with -fdump-tree-vect-details

(In reply to comment #10)
[karma] f90/bug% grep "Alignment of access" vect-42.c.104t.vect
/opt/gcc/_gcc_clean/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-42.c:43: note: Alignment of
access forced using peeling.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40359

[Bug testsuite/40359] [4.5 Regression] Revision 148211 caused a lot of failures in the vect test suite.

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.5.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40359

[Bug testsuite/40359] [4.5 Regression] Revision 148211 caused a lot of failures in the vect test suite.

[irar at il dot ibm dot com]

------- Comment #12 from irar at il dot ibm dot com  2009-06-15 09:58 -------
(In reply to comment #9)
> The patch in comment #8 fixes the failures reported in comment #7. I now see
> (powerpc-apple-darwin9 with -m64):
> FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-42.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of access
> forced using versioning" 3

Is this target ([istarget *-*-darwin*] && [is-effective-target lp64]) (meaning
vector_alignment_reachable is false for it)?

If so, why do we do peeling? And also why in that case it doesn't XPASS
"Alignment of access forced using peeling" 1 "vect"?

Otherwise, vector_alignment_reachable is true, and it is not supposed to look
for the versioning string at all (since the target is not vect_no_align,
right?).

It doesn't make sense to me either way...
Revital, maybe you can try to add brackets: { ! { vector_alignment_reachable }
} instead of { ! vector_alignment_reachable} ?

Ira


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40359

[Bug testsuite/40359] [4.5 Regression] Revision 148211 caused a lot of failures in the vect test suite.

[eres at il dot ibm dot com]

------- Comment #13 from eres at il dot ibm dot com  2009-06-15 10:41 -------
Created an attachment (id=18003)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18003&action=view)
Patch to fix error in vect-42.c

Ira, thanks for the suggestion!
I deleted an extra space, so now the syntax is {! vector_alignment_reachable}.
Dominique  -- if that still does not fix the problem I will try to add more
braces...
Thanks!


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40359

[Bug testsuite/40359] [4.5 Regression] Revision 148211 caused a lot of failures in the vect test suite.

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr]

------- Comment #14 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2009-06-15 12:36 -------
(In reply to comment #13)
> if that still does not fix the problem I will try to add more braces...

I tried several variants that were not working. The following patch works,
though I have no idea if it is right:

[karma] darwin_buildw/gcc% diff -up
/opt/gcc/_gcc_clean/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-42.c
/opt/gcc/gcc-4.5-work/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-42.c
--- /opt/gcc/_gcc_clean/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-42.c     2009-06-05
18:02:02.000000000 +0200
+++ /opt/gcc/gcc-4.5-work/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-42.c   2009-06-15
14:17:38.000000000 +0200
@@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ int main (void)
 }

 /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "vectorized 2 loops" 1 "vect" } } */
-/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced using
versioning" 3 "vect" { target { vect_no_align || { { !
vector_alignment_reachable} && {!vect_hw_misalign} } } } } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced using
versioning" 3 "vect" { target { vect_no_align || { { !
vector_alignment_reachable } && vect_hw_misalign } } } } } */
 /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 4
"vect" { xfail { { vect_no_align || vect_hw_misalign } || { !
vector_alignment_reachable } } } } } */
 /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced using
peeling" 1 "vect" { xfail { { vect_no_align || vect_hw_misalign } || { !
vector_alignment_reachable } } } } } */
 /* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "vect" } } */


[karma] darwin_buildw/gcc% make -k check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="vect.exp=vect-42.c
--target_board=unix'{,-m64}'"
...
WARNING: Couldn't find the global config file.
Test Run By dominiq on Mon Jun 15 14:17:58 2009
Native configuration is powerpc-apple-darwin9

                === gcc tests ===

Schedule of variations:
    unix
    unix/-m64

Running target unix
Using /sw/share/dejagnu/baseboards/unix.exp as board description file for
target.
Using /sw/share/dejagnu/config/unix.exp as generic interface file for target.
Using /opt/gcc/gcc-4.5-work/gcc/testsuite/config/default.exp as
tool-and-target-specific interface file.
Running /opt/gcc/gcc-4.5-work/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect.exp ...

                === gcc Summary for unix ===

# of expected passes            5
Running target unix/-m64
Using /sw/share/dejagnu/baseboards/unix.exp as board description file for
target.
Using /sw/share/dejagnu/config/unix.exp as generic interface file for target.
Using /opt/gcc/gcc-4.5-work/gcc/testsuite/config/default.exp as
tool-and-target-specific interface file.
Running /opt/gcc/gcc-4.5-work/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect.exp ...

                === gcc Summary for unix/-m64 ===

# of expected passes            3
# of expected failures          2

                === gcc Summary ===

# of expected passes            8
# of expected failures          2
/opt/gcc/darwin_buildw/gcc/xgcc  version 4.5.0 20090614 (experimental) [trunk
revision 148466] (GCC) 


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40359

[Bug testsuite/40359] [4.5 Regression] Revision 148211 caused a lot of failures in the vect test suite.

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr]

------- Comment #15 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2009-06-15 12:46 -------
With the patch in comment #14, on i686-apple-darwin9 I get:

                === gcc tests ===

Schedule of variations:
    unix
    unix/-m64

Running target unix
Using /sw/share/dejagnu/baseboards/unix.exp as board description file for
target.
Using /sw/share/dejagnu/config/unix.exp as generic interface file for target.
Using /opt/gcc/gcc-4.5-work/gcc/testsuite/config/default.exp as
tool-and-target-specific interface file.
Running /opt/gcc/gcc-4.5-work/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect.exp ...

                === gcc Summary for unix ===

# of expected passes            3
# of expected failures          2
Running target unix/-m64
Using /sw/share/dejagnu/baseboards/unix.exp as board description file for
target.
Using /sw/share/dejagnu/config/unix.exp as generic interface file for target.
Using /opt/gcc/gcc-4.5-work/gcc/testsuite/config/default.exp as
tool-and-target-specific interface file.
Running /opt/gcc/gcc-4.5-work/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect.exp ...

                === gcc Summary for unix/-m64 ===

# of expected passes            3
# of expected failures          2

                === gcc Summary ===

# of expected passes            6
# of expected failures          4
/Volumes/MacBook/opt/gcc/i686-darwin/gcc/xgcc  version 4.5.0 20090614
(experimental) [trunk revision 148472] (GCC) 


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40359

[Bug testsuite/40359] [4.5 Regression] Revision 148211 caused a lot of failures in the vect test suite.

[eres at il dot ibm dot com]

------- Comment #16 from eres at il dot ibm dot com  2009-06-15 13:32 -------
> -/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced using
> versioning" 3 "vect" { target { vect_no_align || { { !
> vector_alignment_reachable} && {!vect_hw_misalign} } } } } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced using
> versioning" 3 "vect" { target { vect_no_align || { { !
> vector_alignment_reachable } && vect_hw_misalign } } } } } */

hmmm... versioning should not be done for targets that support
vect_hw_misalign... 
Although this change fixes the failures it does not seem to be right...

Thanks again.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40359

[Bug testsuite/40359] [4.5 Regression] Revision 148211 caused a lot of failures in the vect test suite.

[irar at il dot ibm dot com]

------- Comment #17 from irar at il dot ibm dot com  2009-06-16 07:36 -------
Dominique, 

Could you please try this patch (I changed (!a && !b) to !(a || b)).

Thanks,
Ira



Index: vect-42.c
===================================================================
--- vect-42.c   (revision 148487)
+++ vect-42.c   (working copy)
@@ -63,7 +63,7 @@
 }

 /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "vectorized 2 loops" 1 "vect" } } */
-/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced using
versioning" 3 "vect" { target { vect_no_align || { { !
vector_alignment_reachable} && {!vect_hw_misalign} } } } } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced using
versioning" 3 "vect" { target { vect_no_align || { !  {
vector_alignment_reachable || vect_hw_misalign } } } } } } */
 /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 4
"vect" { xfail { { vect_no_align || vect_hw_misalign } || { !
vector_alignment_reachable } } } } } */
 /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced using
peeling" 1 "vect" { xfail { { vect_no_align || vect_hw_misalign } || { !
vector_alignment_reachable } } } } } */
 /* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "vect" } } */


-- 

irar at il dot ibm dot com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |irar at il dot ibm dot com


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40359

[Bug testsuite/40359] [4.5 Regression] Revision 148211 caused a lot of failures in the vect test suite.

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr]

------- Comment #18 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2009-06-16 10:10 -------
> Could you please try this patch (I changed (!a && !b) to !(a || b)).

I am currently regtesting on my ppc and it takes a long time. Meanwhile I am
not sure to understand what you expect with this change: if I am not mistaken
!(a || b) == (!a && !b) .


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40359

[Bug testsuite/40359] [4.5 Regression] Revision 148211 caused a lot of failures in the vect test suite.

[irar at il dot ibm dot com]

------- Comment #19 from irar at il dot ibm dot com  2009-06-16 10:18 -------
(In reply to comment #18)
> > Could you please try this patch (I changed (!a && !b) to !(a || b)).
> I am currently regtesting on my ppc and it takes a long time. Meanwhile I am
> not sure to understand what you expect with this change: if I am not mistaken
> !(a || b) == (!a && !b) .

Yes, the problem is that we think that the test is correct and it doesn't work
because of some syntax/brackets/space problems.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40359

[Bug testsuite/40359] [4.5 Regression] Revision 148211 caused a lot of failures in the vect test suite.

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr]

------- Comment #20 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2009-06-16 10:26 -------
> Yes, the problem is that we think that the test is correct and it doesn't work
> because of some syntax/brackets/space problems.

I certainly don't understand the "space" mess. Before reaching the patch in
comment #14 I have tried several variations. All of them, but the one in
comment #14, either did not fix the failure with -m64 or did fail the test with
-m32. In particular replacing 'target' with 'xfail' fixed the -m64 failure but
the test failed with -m32. What are the expected patterns for the 3 variables
with -m32 and -m64?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40359

[Bug testsuite/40359] [4.5 Regression] Revision 148211 caused a lot of failures in the vect test suite.

[irar at il dot ibm dot com]

------- Comment #21 from irar at il dot ibm dot com  2009-06-16 11:08 -------
(In reply to comment #20)
> What are the expected patterns for the 3 variables
> with -m32 and -m64?

I am not sure, this is why I asked you if the target is 
([istarget *-*-darwin*] && [is-effective-target lp64]).

vect_no_align and vect_hw_misalign have to be false, so, I guess,
vector_alignment_reachable is different for -m32 and -m64, since the behaviour
is different. 

"Alignment of access forced using versioning" means the vectorizer uses loop
versioning to force alignment. It happens when there is no misalignment support
at all (vect_no_align) or when other methods fail: loop peeling doesn't help
(!vector_alignment_reachable) and also there is no hardware misalignment
support (!vect_hw_misalign).

>From the dump you attached, I see that loop peeling was done, therefore,
vector_alignment_reachable is true, and it must not look for "Alignment of
access forced using versioning". But it does. This what makes me think that it
is just a syntax problem.

On the other hand, I don't understand the difference with -m32 and -m64. It
seems to me, that ([istarget *-*-darwin*] && [is-effective-target lp64]) is
false for -m32 and, possibly, true for -m64. But that contradicts the dump.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40359

[Bug testsuite/40359] [4.5 Regression] Revision 148211 caused a lot of failures in the vect test suite.

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr]

------- Comment #22 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2009-06-16 13:13 -------
> On the other hand, I don't understand the difference with -m32 and -m64. It
> seems to me, that ([istarget *-*-darwin*] && [is-effective-target lp64]) is
> false for -m32 and, possibly, true for -m64. But that contradicts the dump.

My understanding is that ([istarget *-*-darwin*] && [is-effective-target lp64])
should return false for -m32 and true for -m64. At least it is how it works on
other tests I have looked at. Is there anyway to check it?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40359

[Bug testsuite/40359] [4.5 Regression] Revision 148211 caused a lot of failures in the vect test suite.

[irar at il dot ibm dot com]

------- Comment #23 from irar at il dot ibm dot com  2009-06-17 08:22 -------
(In reply to comment #22)
> My understanding is that ([istarget *-*-darwin*] && [is-effective-target lp64])
> should return false for -m32 and true for -m64. At least it is how it works on
> other tests I have looked at. Is there anyway to check it?

You can add 
/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "bla bla bla" 1 "vect" { target
vector_alignment_reachable } } } */
to some test. It should fail for -m32 and pass for -m64 (since we think that
vector_alignment_reachable is true for -m32 and false for -m64).


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40359

[Bug testsuite/40359] [4.5 Regression] Revision 148211 caused a lot of failures in the vect test suite.

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr]

------- Comment #24 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2009-06-17 10:17 -------
(In reply to comment #23)
If I add to vect-42.c (with my patch) the line

/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "bla bla bla" 1 "vect" { target
vector_alignment_reachable } } } */

I get:

Running target unix
Using /sw/share/dejagnu/baseboards/unix.exp as board description file for
target.
Using /sw/share/dejagnu/config/unix.exp as generic interface file for target.
Using /opt/gcc/gcc-4.5-work/gcc/testsuite/config/default.exp as
tool-and-target-specific interface file.
Running /opt/gcc/gcc-4.5-work/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect.exp ...
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-42.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "bla bla bla" 1

                === gcc Summary for unix ===

# of expected passes            5
# of unexpected failures        1
Running target unix/-m64
Using /sw/share/dejagnu/baseboards/unix.exp as board description file for
target.
Using /sw/share/dejagnu/config/unix.exp as generic interface file for target.
Using /opt/gcc/gcc-4.5-work/gcc/testsuite/config/default.exp as
tool-and-target-specific interface file.
Running /opt/gcc/gcc-4.5-work/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect.exp ...

                === gcc Summary for unix/-m64 ===

# of expected passes            3
# of expected failures          2

i.e., the test is done for -m32 (and fail) but not for -m64.

If I add the line

* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "bla bla bla" 1 "vect" { target { !
vect_hw_misalign } } } } *//

I get

Running target unix
Using /sw/share/dejagnu/baseboards/unix.exp as board description file for
target.
Using /sw/share/dejagnu/config/unix.exp as generic interface file for target.
Using /opt/gcc/gcc-4.5-work/gcc/testsuite/config/default.exp as
tool-and-target-specific interface file.
Running /opt/gcc/gcc-4.5-work/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect.exp ...
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-42.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "bla bla bla" 1

                === gcc Summary for unix ===

# of expected passes            5
# of unexpected failures        1
Running target unix/-m64
Using /sw/share/dejagnu/baseboards/unix.exp as board description file for
target.
Using /sw/share/dejagnu/config/unix.exp as generic interface file for target.
Using /opt/gcc/gcc-4.5-work/gcc/testsuite/config/default.exp as
tool-and-target-specific interface file.
Running /opt/gcc/gcc-4.5-work/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect.exp ...
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-42.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "bla bla bla" 1

                === gcc Summary for unix/-m64 ===

# of expected passes            3
# of unexpected failures        1
# of expected failures          2

i.e., vect_hw_misalign is false for both -m32 and -m64.

So it looks that vect_hw_misalign has the opposite meaning of that assumed in
comment #16:

> hmmm... versioning should not be done for targets that support
> vect_hw_misalign... 

Final note, the change in comment #17 does not help.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40359

[Bug testsuite/40359] [4.5 Regression] Revision 148211 caused a lot of failures in the vect test suite.

[irar at il dot ibm dot com]

------- Comment #25 from irar at il dot ibm dot com  2009-06-17 11:06 -------
(In reply to comment #24)
> If I add to vect-42.c (with my patch) the line
>
> /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "bla bla bla" 1 "vect" { target
vector_alignment_reachable } } } */
...
> i.e., the test is done for -m32 (and fail) but not for -m64.

So, vector_alignment_reachable is true for -m32 and false for -m64.

...
> i.e., vect_hw_misalign is false for both -m32 and -m64.
> So it looks that vect_hw_misalign has the opposite meaning of that assumed in
> comment #16:
> > hmmm... versioning should not be done for targets that support
> > vect_hw_misalign... 

Why? vect_hw_misalign means that misaligned data acceses are supported by
hardware, therefore, we don't need to do versioning. And we expect versioning
here with -m64 since both vect_hw_misalign and vector_alignment_reachable are
false.

> Final note, the change in comment #17 does not help.

Thanks for checking.


I still don't understand why this test works on -m64
/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced using peeling"
1 "vect" { xfail { { vect_no_align || vect_hw_misalign } || { !
vector_alignment_reachable } } } } } */
vector_alignment_reachable is false, so there should be no peeling according to
the test. But it is there, and the test doesn't XPASS...

And, of course, I don't understand why we do peeling, i.e., builtin
vector_alignment_reachable returns true.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40359

[Bug testsuite/40359] [4.5 Regression] Revision 148211 caused a lot of failures in the vect test suite.

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr]

------- Comment #26 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2009-06-17 11:58 -------
Created an attachment (id=18012)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18012&action=view)
dump file with -fdump-tree-vect-details default (-m32) for revision 148502.

Summary:

[karma] f90/bug% grep peeling vect-42_32.c.105t.vect 
/opt/gcc/_gcc_clean/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-42.c:43: note: Alignment of
access forced using peeling.
/opt/gcc/_gcc_clean/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-42.c:43: note: ===
vect_do_peeling_for_alignment ===
/opt/gcc/_gcc_clean/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-42.c:43: note: ===
vect_do_peeling_for_loop_bound ===(get_loop_exit_condition 
[karma] f90/bug% grep versioning vect-42_32.c.105t.vect 
[karma] f90/bug% grep unaligned vect-42_32.c.105t.vect 
/opt/gcc/_gcc_clean/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-42.c:43: note: Vectorizing
an unaligned access.
/opt/gcc/_gcc_clean/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-42.c:43: note: Vectorizing
an unaligned access.
/opt/gcc/_gcc_clean/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-42.c:43: note:
vect_model_load_cost: unaligned software pipelined.
/opt/gcc/_gcc_clean/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-42.c:43: note:
vect_model_load_cost: unaligned software pipelined.
/opt/gcc/_gcc_clean/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-42.c:37: note: Vectorizing
an unaligned access.
/opt/gcc/_gcc_clean/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-42.c:37: note: Vectorizing
an unaligned access.
/opt/gcc/_gcc_clean/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-42.c:37: note:
vect_model_load_cost: unaligned software pipelined.
/opt/gcc/_gcc_clean/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-42.c:37: note:
vect_model_load_cost: unaligned software pipelined.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40359

[Bug testsuite/40359] [4.5 Regression] Revision 148211 caused a lot of failures in the vect test suite.

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr]

------- Comment #27 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2009-06-17 12:03 -------
Created an attachment (id=18013)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18013&action=view)
dump file with -fdump-tree-vect-details -m64 for revision 148502.

Summary:

[karma] f90/bug% grep peeling vect-42_64.c.105t.vect
[karma] f90/bug% grep versioning vect-42_64.c.105t.vect
/opt/gcc/_gcc_clean/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-42.c:43: note: Alignment of
access forced using versioning.
[karma] f90/bug% grep unaligned vect-42_64.c.105t.vect
/opt/gcc/_gcc_clean/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-42.c:37: note: Vectorizing
an unaligned access.
/opt/gcc/_gcc_clean/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-42.c:37: note: Vectorizing
an unaligned access.
/opt/gcc/_gcc_clean/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-42.c:37: note:
vect_model_load_cost: unaligned software pipelined.
/opt/gcc/_gcc_clean/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-42.c:37: note:
vect_model_load_cost: unaligned software pipelined.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40359

[Bug testsuite/40359] [4.5 Regression] Revision 148211 caused a lot of failures in the vect test suite.

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr]

------- Comment #28 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2009-06-17 12:12 -------
Does the following patch makes more sense for you:

--- ../_gcc_clean/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-42.c   2009-06-05
18:02:02.000000000 +0200
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-42.c 2009-06-17 14:08:50.000000000 +0200
@@ -63,7 +63,8 @@ int main (void)
 }

 /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "vectorized 2 loops" 1 "vect" } } */
-/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced using
versioning" 3 "vect" { target { vect_no_align || { { !
vector_alignment_reachable} && {!vect_hw_misalign} } } } } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced using
versioning" 1 "vect" { target { vect_no_align || { { !
vector_alignment_reachable } && { ! vect_hw_misalign } } } } } } */
 /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 4
"vect" { xfail { { vect_no_align || vect_hw_misalign } || { !
vector_alignment_reachable } } } } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 2
"vect" { xfail { { vect_no_align || vect_hw_misalign } ||
vector_alignment_reachable } } } } */
 /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced using
peeling" 1 "vect" { xfail { { vect_no_align || vect_hw_misalign } || { !
vector_alignment_reachable } } } } } */
 /* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "vect" } } */

which yields:

Running target unix
Using /sw/share/dejagnu/baseboards/unix.exp as board description file for
target.
Using /sw/share/dejagnu/config/unix.exp as generic interface file for target.
Using /opt/gcc/gcc-4.5-work/gcc/testsuite/config/default.exp as
tool-and-target-specific interface file.
Running /opt/gcc/gcc-4.5-work/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect.exp ...

                === gcc Summary for unix ===

# of expected passes            5
# of expected failures          1
Running target unix/-m64
Using /sw/share/dejagnu/baseboards/unix.exp as board description file for
target.
Using /sw/share/dejagnu/config/unix.exp as generic interface file for target.
Using /opt/gcc/gcc-4.5-work/gcc/testsuite/config/default.exp as
tool-and-target-specific interface file.
Running /opt/gcc/gcc-4.5-work/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect.exp ...

                === gcc Summary for unix/-m64 ===

# of expected passes            5
# of expected failures          2


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40359

[Bug testsuite/40359] [4.5 Regression] Revision 148211 caused a lot of failures in the vect test suite.

[irar at il dot ibm dot com]

------- Comment #29 from irar at il dot ibm dot com  2009-06-17 12:40 -------
Oh, so the first dump you attached (in comment #11) was for -m32. Now it makes
sense.

I think, we have to distinguish between vect_no_align and the other cases. I
will prepare a patch tomorrow.

Thanks,
Ira


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40359

[Bug testsuite/40359] [4.5 Regression] Revision 148211 caused a lot of failures in the vect test suite.

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr]

------- Comment #30 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2009-06-17 12:48 -------
> Oh, so the first dump you attached (in comment #11) was for -m32. Now it makes sense.

Since I started to have some doubts about it, I redid it for both cases to be
sure.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40359

[Bug testsuite/40359] [4.5 Regression] Revision 148211 caused a lot of failures in the vect test suite.

[irar at il dot ibm dot com]

------- Comment #31 from irar at il dot ibm dot com  2009-06-18 08:03 -------
Created an attachment (id=18019)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18019&action=view)
patch to fix vect-42.c

I think the easiest way to fix it is to change the test to have one vetorizable
loop again as before http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=rev&revision=147851.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40359

[Bug testsuite/40359] [4.5 Regression] Revision 148211 caused a lot of failures in the vect test suite.

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr]

------- Comment #32 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2009-06-18 08:46 -------
With the patch in comment #31 I get:

Running target unix
Using /sw/share/dejagnu/baseboards/unix.exp as board description file for
target.
Using /sw/share/dejagnu/config/unix.exp as generic interface file for target.
Using /opt/gcc/gcc-4.5-work/gcc/testsuite/config/default.exp as
tool-and-target-specific interface file.
Running /opt/gcc/gcc-4.5-work/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect.exp ...
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-42.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing an unaligned
access" 2
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-42.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of access
forced using peeling" 1

                === gcc Summary for unix ===

# of expected passes            3
# of unexpected failures        2
Running target unix/-m64
Using /sw/share/dejagnu/baseboards/unix.exp as board description file for
target.
Using /sw/share/dejagnu/config/unix.exp as generic interface file for target.
Using /opt/gcc/gcc-4.5-work/gcc/testsuite/config/default.exp as
tool-and-target-specific interface file.
Running /opt/gcc/gcc-4.5-work/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect.exp ...
ERROR: gcc.dg/vect/vect-42.c: error executing dg-final: syntax error in target
selector "target !vect_hw_misalign"

                === gcc Summary for unix/-m64 ===

# of expected passes            3
# of unresolved testcases       1

The syntax error is fixed by replacing {!vect_hw_misalign} with { !
vect_hw_misalign }. For the 32 bit mode, the failures are consistent with:

[karma] f90/bug% gfc -O3 -fdump-tree-vect-details
/opt/gcc/gcc-4.5-work/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-42.c
[karma] f90/bug% grep unaligned vect-42.c.105t.vect
[karma] f90/bug% grep peeling vect-42.c.105t.vect
[karma] f90/bug% grep versioning vect-42.c.105t.vect
/opt/gcc/gcc-4.5-work/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-42.c:37: note: versioning
for alias required: can't determine dependence between b[i_17] and *D.2095_6
/opt/gcc/gcc-4.5-work/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-42.c:37: note: versioning
for alias required: can't determine dependence between c[i_17] and *D.2095_6
/opt/gcc/gcc-4.5-work/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-42.c:37: note: Alignment
of access forced using versioning.
/opt/gcc/gcc-4.5-work/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-42.c:37: note: created 2
versioning for alias checks.

i.e., no "unaligned" nor "peeling" found.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40359

[Bug testsuite/40359] [4.5 Regression] Revision 148211 caused a lot of failures in the vect test suite.

[irar at il dot ibm dot com]

------- Comment #33 from irar at il dot ibm dot com  2009-06-18 09:14 -------
Created an attachment (id=18020)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18020&action=view)
fix vect-42.c

OK, now I understand why we need two loops here (we need to pass the arrays as
parameters to avoid versioning for alias).
So, I split the checks for vect_no_align and the others. Hope, this time it
works.
Thanks.


-- 

irar at il dot ibm dot com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Attachment #18019|0                           |1
        is obsolete|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40359

[Bug testsuite/40359] [4.5 Regression] Revision 148211 caused a lot of failures in the vect test suite.

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr]

------- Comment #34 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2009-06-18 12:59 -------
With the patch in comment #33, I get on powerpc-apple-darwin9:

Running target unix
Using /sw/share/dejagnu/baseboards/unix.exp as board description file for
target.
Using /sw/share/dejagnu/config/unix.exp as generic interface file for target.
Using /opt/gcc/gcc-4.5-work/gcc/testsuite/config/default.exp as
tool-and-target-specific interface file.
Running /opt/gcc/gcc-4.5-work/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect.exp ...

                === gcc Summary for unix ===

# of expected passes            5
Running target unix/-m64
Using /sw/share/dejagnu/baseboards/unix.exp as board description file for
target.
Using /sw/share/dejagnu/config/unix.exp as generic interface file for target.
Using /opt/gcc/gcc-4.5-work/gcc/testsuite/config/default.exp as
tool-and-target-specific interface file.
Running /opt/gcc/gcc-4.5-work/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect.exp ...

                === gcc Summary for unix/-m64 ===

# of expected passes            4
# of expected failures          2

and on i686-apple-darwin9:

Schedule of variations:
    unix
    unix/-m64

Running target unix
Using /sw/share/dejagnu/baseboards/unix.exp as board description file for
target.
Using /sw/share/dejagnu/config/unix.exp as generic interface file for target.
Using /opt/gcc/gcc-4.5-work/gcc/testsuite/config/default.exp as
tool-and-target-specific interface file.
Running /opt/gcc/gcc-4.5-work/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect.exp ...

                === gcc Summary for unix ===

# of expected passes            3
# of expected failures          2
Running target unix/-m64
Using /sw/share/dejagnu/baseboards/unix.exp as board description file for
target.
Using /sw/share/dejagnu/config/unix.exp as generic interface file for target.
Using /opt/gcc/gcc-4.5-work/gcc/testsuite/config/default.exp as
tool-and-target-specific interface file.
Running /opt/gcc/gcc-4.5-work/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect.exp ...

                === gcc Summary for unix/-m64 ===

# of expected passes            3
# of expected failures          2

So the patch fixes the last problem (at least for these platforms). Thanks for
your patience!


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40359

[Bug testsuite/40359] [4.5 Regression] Revision 148211 caused a lot of failures in the vect test suite.

[eres at il dot ibm dot com]

------- Comment #35 from eres at il dot ibm dot com  2009-06-18 14:06 -------
Created an attachment (id=18021)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18021&action=view)
Final version of the patch

I'll submit the following patch -- it contains Ira's latest fix and two syntax
errors fixes.

Thanks again for helping!


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40359

[Bug testsuite/40359] [4.5 Regression] Revision 148211 caused a lot of failures in the vect test suite.

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr]

------- Comment #36 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2009-07-06 09:03 -------
Closing as fixed.


-- 

dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40359