From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 9A9733857C75; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 16:01:40 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 9A9733857C75
From: "rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/100328] IRA doesn't model matching constraint
 well
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 16:01:39 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: rtl-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-100328-4-9M88Gu2rFE@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-100328-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-100328-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 16:01:40 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D100328

--- Comment #7 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org <rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.or=
g> ---
(In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #6)
> Created attachment 51066 [details]
> aarch64 XPASS failure list
>=20
> The patch v3 bootstrapped and regression-tested on x86_64-redhat-linux and
> powerpc64le-linux-gnu, but still have some "XFAIL -> XPASS" regression
> failures on aarch64-linux-gnu, I think these remaining failures are expec=
ted
> (assembly gets improved). Need Richard's help to double check/confirm the=
m.
Nice!  Yeah, these are all progressions rather than regressions.

The scan-assemblers in gcc.target/sve/acle check for the preferred output.
We don't always get there yet, so some of them have been XFAILed.  But for
this part of the testsuite all XFAILs->XPASSes are improvements.=