From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 227013857710; Mon, 27 Nov 2023 08:43:43 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 227013857710 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1701074623; bh=LxgxrB9ATni9ufOgg16tASwQUJk5tMq70LdHK+8n78M=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=vdWSMK9QWgz4avJt9FiVCJOa2okR+y2o6KoNLlT+BdyOgaojkWu7m+UWfhL+6GLJN T0Mlgjkv7SuGyZZArijrEBQlKj8ZwIGYXb4GeIF5Cs/+FUuSaOoUGwLZ9VuwD+fSNA 5Wt/XkZuxOQsxGXcE97z0lpB0Ig9CVWmHdRIiKV8= From: "rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/112598] RISC-V regression testsuite errors with rv64gcv_zvl512b Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2023 08:43:41 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: target X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: testsuite-fail X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned 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=3D112598 --- Comment #13 from Robin Dapp --- It looks like the takeaway from the other thread is that there are many likewise assumptions about masked stores in the middle end. It's probably difficult to get them all right in a short time. Therefore I suppose our o= nly choice is to go "UNSPEC" as well for now. I'm also testing some quick hacks locally. What's the problem about the pred_store pattern you mention? That we would lose that particular optimization?=