From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id B20533887008; Thu, 20 Jun 2024 05:15:29 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org B20533887008 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1718860529; bh=JJFfh9zbJr4zBFPAokz2I5z9bT/eXcWeDPHoPF3YJJk=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=ivHqwXmsPx52I3Cf0ddjXZNv8sN5DWrxcUz1/UQQtsUZFNYdIVCg7NenREeCXYaUP km34IltXINrLqdi7zJQCqv7S368wB8JEIR7mYh5Rl6ZQpvqJVNKccJ7OAdWJF+akzc OBsFfAPsdU1JDliomWWLIU2JsSDJ+SAp5nBT16hM= From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/115304] gcc.dg/vect/slp-gap-1.c FAILs Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 05:15:28 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization X-Bugzilla-Version: 15.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: testsuite-fail X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia 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: 15.0 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc 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=3D115304 Andrew Pinski changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski --- Note when I am adding V4QI support to the aarch64 backend (emulating it via V8QI), I am getting a failure in slp-gap-1.c but it is different from the others. Without V4QI, the pattern matched `\{_\[0-9\]\+, 0` was able to match 6 tim= es. we got in the IR: ``` unsigned int _50; vector(2) unsigned int _49; ... _50 =3D MEM [(uint8_t *)vectp_pix1.5_58]; _49 =3D {_50, 0}; ``` But afterwards we now get: ``` vector(4) unsigned char _50; vector(8) unsigned char vect__34.9; ... _50 =3D MEM [(uint8_t *)vectp_pix1.5_58]; vect__34.9_49 =3D {_50, { 0, 0, 0, 0 }}; ``` Which produces the exact same code. I am trying to figure out the best way = to change the testcase pattern to make sure we don't match: vect__37.23_6 =3D VEC_PERM_EXPR ; too. `\{_\[0-9\]\+, { 0, 0` I think that will work but should I just do an alternative for the scan-tree-dump-times or should I put it as a seperate o= ne with some target selection here?=