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 131173857342; Wed, 30 Aug 2023 21:25:57 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 131173857342
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1693430758;
	bh=jjsaHX8bevXUDy7m7V7pO5X5h4+eQP7DRaXZAOWoEcA=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=X+WC1aA8rDTxpOsPG/Gs+7AaOnCy31YoIyUjV09FuWTUNYoQ5AV9aaXROlI5/ZZG5
	 zRLLMJXR45xeC7XSZkRdvdnSM5nNAiRajR4PKmg0et0ZZQrjywaCfLwXKcAjyqx2a9
	 H3M4Mrw5HkTjlmGmCbvWYy/AOMCW4EyHwdeUwZMQ=
From: "bergner at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug testsuite/111216] [14 regression] instructions counts for
 vector tests change after r14-3258-ge7a36e4715c716
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 21:25:57 +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: bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-111216-4-JA6sIqvz75@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-111216-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-111216-4@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
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D111216

--- Comment #3 from Peter Bergner <bergner at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #2)
> The code change that led to this looks correct to me.  Are we possibly ju=
st
> folding more than we used to (a good thing), and that is changing our
> numbers?  What are the actual and expected counts?

So looking at the differences between "before" and "after", we're seeing:
 test6_nor:
 .LFB13:
        .cfi_startproc
-       xxlor 34,34,35
        li 9,0
        lvx 0,0,9
        addi 10,1,-16
        xxpermdi 32,32,32,2
        stxvd2x 32,0,10
        xxpermdi 32,32,32,2
-       vsububm 2,0,2
-       vspltisw 0,-1
+       xxlnor 34,34,35
        vaddubm 2,2,0
        stvx 2,0,9
        blr

...so yes, we are getting more folding than before and the generated code is
better, so we should update the expected counts.  It seems to be the same i=
ssue
in all of the tests.=