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 50F03385503C; Thu,  1 Jul 2021 06:18:33 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 50F03385503C
From: "linkw 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: Thu, 01 Jul 2021 06:18:32 +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: linkw 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-o2D0OQZXF7@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: Thu, 01 Jul 2021 06:18:33 -0000

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

--- Comment #8 from Kewen Lin <linkw at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to rsandifo@gcc.gnu.org from comment #7)
> (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 exp=
ected
> > (assembly gets improved). Need Richard's help to double check/confirm t=
hem.
> Nice!  Yeah, these are all progressions rather than regressions.
>=20
> 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.

Thanks for your time, Richard! I'll make a patch to fix these expected test
case changes.=