public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug testsuite/106344] New: A few x86_64 tests fail with -march=x86-64-v2
@ 2022-07-18 16:29 mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
  2024-08-20 17:57 ` [Bug testsuite/106344] " mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
                   ` (5 more replies)
  0 siblings, 6 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-07-18 16:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106344

            Bug ID: 106344
           Summary: A few x86_64 tests fail with -march=x86-64-v2
           Product: gcc
           Version: 12.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: testsuite
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
  Target Milestone: ---

The following tests fail when -march=x86-64-v2 is the default:

gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-57.c
gcc.dg/vect/slp-21.c
gcc.dg/vect/slp-perm-9.c
gcc.target/i386/minmax-9.c
gcc.target/i386/sse2-mmx-21.c
g++.target/i386/pr98218-1.C

Can be reproduced with:
$ make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS='--target_board=unix\{,-march=x86-64-v2\}
vect.exp=bb-slp-57.c'
$ make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS='--target_board=unix\{,-march=x86-64-v2\}
vect.exp=slp-21.c'
$ make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS='--target_board=unix\{,-march=x86-64-v2\}
vect.exp=slp-perm-9.c'
$ make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS='--target_board=unix\{,-march=x86-64-v2\}
i386.exp=minmax-9.c'
$ make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS='--target_board=unix\{,-march=x86-64-v2\}
i386.exp=sse2-mmx-21.c'
$ make check-g++ RUNTESTFLAGS='--target_board=unix\{,-march=x86-64-v2\}
i386.exp=pr98218-1.C'

Would there be a way to amend the tests so that they don't fail with
-march=x86-64-v2?

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

* [Bug testsuite/106344] A few x86_64 tests fail with -march=x86-64-v2
  2022-07-18 16:29 [Bug testsuite/106344] New: A few x86_64 tests fail with -march=x86-64-v2 mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-08-20 17:57 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
  2024-08-20 17:59 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
                   ` (4 subsequent siblings)
  5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-08-20 17:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106344

--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
More:

FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr92834.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized "MAX_EXPR <" 8
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr94786.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized "MAX_EXPR <" 4

These pass with -march=x86-64.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

* [Bug testsuite/106344] A few x86_64 tests fail with -march=x86-64-v2
  2022-07-18 16:29 [Bug testsuite/106344] New: A few x86_64 tests fail with -march=x86-64-v2 mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
  2024-08-20 17:57 ` [Bug testsuite/106344] " mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-08-20 17:59 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
  2024-08-20 18:03 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
                   ` (3 subsequent siblings)
  5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-08-20 17:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106344

--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
This too works with -march=x86-64 but not -march=x86-64-v2.

FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/slsr-31.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized " \\* 2" 1

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

* [Bug testsuite/106344] A few x86_64 tests fail with -march=x86-64-v2
  2022-07-18 16:29 [Bug testsuite/106344] New: A few x86_64 tests fail with -march=x86-64-v2 mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
  2024-08-20 17:57 ` [Bug testsuite/106344] " mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
  2024-08-20 17:59 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-08-20 18:03 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
  2024-08-20 18:04 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
                   ` (2 subsequent siblings)
  5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-08-20 18:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106344

--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
> More:
> 
> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr92834.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized "MAX_EXPR <" 8

This is .REDUC_MAX vs MAX_EXPR .

> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr94786.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized "MAX_EXPR <" 4

Likewise. Simple fix add -fno-tree-vectorize .

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

* [Bug testsuite/106344] A few x86_64 tests fail with -march=x86-64-v2
  2022-07-18 16:29 [Bug testsuite/106344] New: A few x86_64 tests fail with -march=x86-64-v2 mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
                   ` (2 preceding siblings ...)
  2024-08-20 18:03 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-08-20 18:04 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
  2024-08-20 18:14 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
  2024-08-20 19:16 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
  5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-08-20 18:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106344

--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #2)
> This too works with -march=x86-64 but not -march=x86-64-v2.
> 
> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/slsr-31.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized " \\* 2" 1

Simple fix -fno-tree-vectorize. Since we got .REDUC_PLUS here.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

* [Bug testsuite/106344] A few x86_64 tests fail with -march=x86-64-v2
  2022-07-18 16:29 [Bug testsuite/106344] New: A few x86_64 tests fail with -march=x86-64-v2 mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
                   ` (3 preceding siblings ...)
  2024-08-20 18:04 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-08-20 18:14 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
  2024-08-20 19:16 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
  5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-08-20 18:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106344

--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
These too:

FAIL: gcc.target/i386/vect-double-2.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorized
loops: 1" 1
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/xorsign.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 2 loops"
1

with -march=x86-64-v2 we're able to vectorize more loops.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

* [Bug testsuite/106344] A few x86_64 tests fail with -march=x86-64-v2
  2022-07-18 16:29 [Bug testsuite/106344] New: A few x86_64 tests fail with -march=x86-64-v2 mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
                   ` (4 preceding siblings ...)
  2024-08-20 18:14 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-08-20 19:16 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
  5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-08-20 19:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106344

--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
$ make check-c RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=unix\{-march=x86-64-v3\} vect.exp"

shows more problematic tests:

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-cselim-1.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 2
loops" 1
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-multitypes-1.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of
access forced using peeling" 2
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-nb-iter-ub-3.c scan-tree-dump-not cunroll "loop turned
into non-loop; it never loops"
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-peel-3.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing an
unaligned access" 1
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-peel-3.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of access
forced using peeling" 1
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-simd-clone-20.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "[\\n\\r]
[^\\n]* = foo\\.simdclone" 4
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/slp-multitypes-11-big-array.c scan-tree-dump-times vect
"vectorizing stmts using SLP" 1
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/slp-3-big-array.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorizing
stmts using SLP" 4
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/slp-reduc-1.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorizing stmts
using SLP" 1
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-cond-1.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "loop vectorized" 1
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-subgroups-3.c scan-tree-dump-times slp2 "optimized:
basic block" 2
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-92.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects  scan-tree-dump-times vect
"Vectorizing an unaligned access" 0
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-92.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects  scan-tree-dump-times vect
"Alignment of access forced using peeling" 3
XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/tsvc/vect-tsvc-vif.c scan-tree-dump vect "vectorized 1
loops"
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-cselim-1.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects  scan-tree-dump-times
vect "vectorized 2 loops" 1
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-multitypes-1.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects 
scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of access forced using peeling" 2
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-nb-iter-ub-3.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects 
scan-tree-dump-not cunroll "loop turned into non-loop; it never loops"
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-peel-3.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects  scan-tree-dump-times
vect "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 1
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-peel-3.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects  scan-tree-dump-times
vect "Alignment of access forced using peeling" 1
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/slp-3-big-array.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects 
scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorizing stmts using SLP" 4
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/slp-reduc-1.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects  scan-tree-dump-times
vect "vectorizing stmts using SLP" 1
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/slp-multitypes-11-big-array.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects 
scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorizing stmts using SLP" 1
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-cond-1.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects  scan-tree-dump-times
vect "loop vectorized" 1
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-subgroups-3.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects 
scan-tree-dump-times slp2 "optimized: basic block" 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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2024-08-20 19:16 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2022-07-18 16:29 [Bug testsuite/106344] New: A few x86_64 tests fail with -march=x86-64-v2 mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-08-20 17:57 ` [Bug testsuite/106344] " mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-08-20 17:59 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-08-20 18:03 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-08-20 18:04 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-08-20 18:14 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-08-20 19:16 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).