From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id C17DB3858423; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 18:16:42 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org C17DB3858423 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1682187402; bh=1BCPw6YlBGFmBvgUBl3YMlHA2i9qw2gKNF4kUUvONFA=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=uj6boXYzyOT7ncNnNN0NzSSN390q0UJ4S++TdBF4ZufsM1B0yo48TCDyOIMEM3wr5 MhlmUDVjkrz76atLqmCBdwB/02A1Y9UbTMexPSNGFdIg7KPwh7SeDP2rC55hLPtxgd ENxN5OWQUFaQfohXLMzYTlnydIGegJmMn9UPEPKE= From: "cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug testsuite/109572] new test case gcc.dg/vect/pr109011-4.c from r14-108-g705b0d2b62318b fails Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2023 18:16:42 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: testsuite X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: testsuite-fail X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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 List-Id: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D109572 --- Comment #1 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7a0cbaf7f802df209840d78740ffc749dadd1ce3 commit r14-166-g7a0cbaf7f802df209840d78740ffc749dadd1ce3 Author: Jakub Jelinek Date: Sat Apr 22 20:16:08 2023 +0200 testsuite: Fix up pr109011-*.c tests for powerpc [PR109572] As reported, pr109011-{4,5}.c tests fail on powerpc. I thought they should have the same counts as the corresponding -{2,3}.c tests, the only difference is that -{2,3}.c are int while -{4,5}.c are long long. But there are 2 issues. One is that in the foo function the vectorization costs comparison triggered in, while in -{2,= 3}.c we use vectorization factor 4 and it was found beneficial, when using long long it was just vf 2 and the scalar cost of doing p[i] =3D __builtin_ctzll (q[i]) twice looked smaller than the vectoriza= ted statements. I could disable the cost model, but instead chose to add some further arithmetics to those functions to make it beneficial even with vf 2. After that change, pr109011-4.c still failed; I was expecting 4 .CTZ ca= lls there on power9, 3 vectorized and one in scalar code, but for some reas= on the scalar one didn't trigger. As I really want to count just the vectorized calls, I've added the vect prefix on the variables to ensure I'm only counting vectorized calls and decreased the 4 counts to 3. 2023-04-22 Jakub Jelinek PR testsuite/109572 * gcc.dg/vect/pr109011-1.c: In scan-tree-dump-times regexps mat= ch also vect prefix to make sure we only count vectorized calls. * gcc.dg/vect/pr109011-2.c: Likewise. On powerpc* expect just count 3 rather than 4. * gcc.dg/vect/pr109011-3.c: In scan-tree-dump-times regexps mat= ch also vect prefix to make sure we only count vectorized calls. * gcc.dg/vect/pr109011-4.c: Likewise. On powerpc* expect just count 3 rather than 4. (foo): Add 2 further arithmetic ops to the loop to make it appe= ar worthwhile for vectorization heuristics on powerpc. * gcc.dg/vect/pr109011-5.c: In scan-tree-dump-times regexps mat= ch also vect prefix to make sure we only count vectorized calls. (foo): Add 2 further arithmetic ops to the loop to make it appe= ar worthwhile for vectorization heuristics on powerpc.=