public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug testsuite/51693] New: New XPASSes in vectorizer testsuite on powerpc64-suse-linux
@ 2011-12-28 11:06 irar at il dot ibm.com
2011-12-28 11:10 ` [Bug testsuite/51693] " michael.v.zolotukhin at gmail dot com
` (10 more replies)
0 siblings, 11 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: irar at il dot ibm.com @ 2011-12-28 11:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51693
Bug #: 51693
Summary: New XPASSes in vectorizer testsuite on
powerpc64-suse-linux
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
AssignedTo: unassigned@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: irar@il.ibm.com
CC: michael.v.zolotukhin@gmail.com
Host: powerpc64-suse-linux
Target: powerpc64-suse-linux
Build: powerpc64-suse-linux
Revision 182583 http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revision&revision=182583 caused
several XPASSes on powerpc64-suse-linux:
XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/vect-multitypes-1.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of
access forced using peeling" 2
XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/vect-multitypes-1.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing
an unaligned access" 4
XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/vect-peel-3.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing an
unaligned access" 1
XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/vect-peel-3.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of access
forced using peeling" 1
XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/vect-multitypes-1.c -flto scan-tree-dump-times vect
"Alignment of access forced using peeling" 2
XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/vect-multitypes-1.c -flto scan-tree-dump-times vect
"Vectorizing an unaligned access" 4
XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/vect-peel-3.c -flto scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing
an unaligned access" 1
XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/vect-peel-3.c -flto scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of
access forced using peeling" 1
XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/no-section-anchors-vect-69.c scan-tree-dump-times vect
"Alignment of access forced using peeling" 2
The reason is that {!vect_aligned_arrays} was added to xfail of the above
checks, while vect_aligned_arrays is false for power.
Changing that, i.e.:
Index: ../../lib/target-supports.exp
===================================================================
--- ../../lib/target-supports.exp (revision 182703)
+++ ../../lib/target-supports.exp (working copy)
@@ -3222,7 +3222,8 @@ proc check_effective_target_vect_aligned_arrays {
set et_vect_aligned_arrays_saved 1
}
}
- if [istarget spu-*-*] {
+ if {[istarget spu-*-*]
+ || [istarget powerpc*-*-*] } {
set et_vect_aligned_arrays_saved 1
}
}
fixes the XPASSes and doesn't cause any problems (on powerpc64-suse-linux), but
AFAIU arrays are not always vector aligned on power, so this is not a good
idea, unless we change the definition of
check_effective_target_vect_aligned_arrays.
What was the purpose of adding {!vect_aligned_arrays} to these tests? If
peeling is impossible on AVX because arrays are never vector aligned, maybe we
need a new target check instead of vect_aligned_arrays?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/51693] New XPASSes in vectorizer testsuite on powerpc64-suse-linux
2011-12-28 11:06 [Bug testsuite/51693] New: New XPASSes in vectorizer testsuite on powerpc64-suse-linux irar at il dot ibm.com
@ 2011-12-28 11:10 ` michael.v.zolotukhin at gmail dot com
2011-12-28 12:59 ` irar at il dot ibm.com
` (9 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: michael.v.zolotukhin at gmail dot com @ 2011-12-28 11:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51693
--- Comment #1 from Michael Zolotukhin <michael.v.zolotukhin at gmail dot com> 2011-12-28 11:08:36 UTC ---
I though that if {vect_aligned_arrays} isn't true, than arrays could
be aligned even after peeling - that's why I added such check.
Unfortunately, I can't reproduce these fails, as I have no PowerPC. By
the way, if arrays aren't aligned on Power, why does GCC produce such
messages - does it really try to peel something? Maybe we should just
refine the check?
Anyway, if everything is ok with the tests (in original version) and
with gcc itself - we could check not for vect_aligned_arrays, but for
AVX. Please check
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-12/msg01600.html and the
attached to that letter patch.
Thanks, Michael
On 28 December 2011 14:51, irar at il dot ibm.com
<gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51693
>
> Bug #: 51693
> Summary: New XPASSes in vectorizer testsuite on
> powerpc64-suse-linux
> Classification: Unclassified
> Product: gcc
> Version: 4.7.0
> Status: UNCONFIRMED
> Severity: normal
> Priority: P3
> Component: testsuite
> AssignedTo: unassigned@gcc.gnu.org
> ReportedBy: irar@il.ibm.com
> CC: michael.v.zolotukhin@gmail.com
> Host: powerpc64-suse-linux
> Target: powerpc64-suse-linux
> Build: powerpc64-suse-linux
>
>
> Revision 182583 http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revision&revision=182583 caused
> several XPASSes on powerpc64-suse-linux:
>
> XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/vect-multitypes-1.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of
> access forced using peeling" 2
> XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/vect-multitypes-1.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing
> an unaligned access" 4
> XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/vect-peel-3.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing an
> unaligned access" 1
> XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/vect-peel-3.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of access
> forced using peeling" 1
> XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/vect-multitypes-1.c -flto scan-tree-dump-times vect
> "Alignment of access forced using peeling" 2
> XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/vect-multitypes-1.c -flto scan-tree-dump-times vect
> "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 4
> XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/vect-peel-3.c -flto scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing
> an unaligned access" 1
> XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/vect-peel-3.c -flto scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of
> access forced using peeling" 1
> XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/no-section-anchors-vect-69.c scan-tree-dump-times vect
> "Alignment of access forced using peeling" 2
>
> The reason is that {!vect_aligned_arrays} was added to xfail of the above
> checks, while vect_aligned_arrays is false for power.
>
> Changing that, i.e.:
> Index: ../../lib/target-supports.exp
> ===================================================================
> --- ../../lib/target-supports.exp (revision 182703)
> +++ ../../lib/target-supports.exp (working copy)
> @@ -3222,7 +3222,8 @@ proc check_effective_target_vect_aligned_arrays {
> set et_vect_aligned_arrays_saved 1
> }
> }
> - if [istarget spu-*-*] {
> + if {[istarget spu-*-*]
> + || [istarget powerpc*-*-*] } {
> set et_vect_aligned_arrays_saved 1
> }
> }
>
> fixes the XPASSes and doesn't cause any problems (on powerpc64-suse-linux), but
> AFAIU arrays are not always vector aligned on power, so this is not a good
> idea, unless we change the definition of
> check_effective_target_vect_aligned_arrays.
>
> What was the purpose of adding {!vect_aligned_arrays} to these tests? If
> peeling is impossible on AVX because arrays are never vector aligned, maybe we
> need a new target check instead of vect_aligned_arrays?
>
> --
> Configure bugmail: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
> You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/51693] New XPASSes in vectorizer testsuite on powerpc64-suse-linux
2011-12-28 11:06 [Bug testsuite/51693] New: New XPASSes in vectorizer testsuite on powerpc64-suse-linux irar at il dot ibm.com
2011-12-28 11:10 ` [Bug testsuite/51693] " michael.v.zolotukhin at gmail dot com
@ 2011-12-28 12:59 ` irar at il dot ibm.com
2011-12-28 13:02 ` michael.v.zolotukhin at gmail dot com
` (8 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: irar at il dot ibm.com @ 2011-12-28 12:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51693
--- Comment #2 from Ira Rosen <irar at il dot ibm.com> 2011-12-28 12:27:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I though that if {vect_aligned_arrays} isn't true, than arrays could
> be aligned even after peeling - that's why I added such check.
Sorry, I don't understand this sentence. What do you mean by aligned after
peeling? Could you please explain what exactly happens on AVX (a dump file with
-fdump-tree-vect-details would be the best thing).
> Unfortunately, I can't reproduce these fails, as I have no PowerPC. By
> the way, if arrays aren't aligned on Power, why does GCC produce such
> messages - does it really try to peel something?
The arrays in the tests are aligned. I said that I think that we can't promise
that all the arrays are vector aligned on power. BTW, we can peel for unknown
misalignment as well.
> Maybe we should just
> refine the check?
> Anyway, if everything is ok with the tests (in original version) and
> with gcc itself - we could check not for vect_aligned_arrays, but for
> AVX. Please check
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-12/msg01600.html and the
> attached to that letter patch.
I think that everything was ok, but I don't think that using vect_sizes_32B_16B
is a good idea. I would really like to see an AVX vect dump for eg.
vect-peel-3.c.
Thanks,
Ira
>
> Thanks, Michael
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/51693] New XPASSes in vectorizer testsuite on powerpc64-suse-linux
2011-12-28 11:06 [Bug testsuite/51693] New: New XPASSes in vectorizer testsuite on powerpc64-suse-linux irar at il dot ibm.com
2011-12-28 11:10 ` [Bug testsuite/51693] " michael.v.zolotukhin at gmail dot com
2011-12-28 12:59 ` irar at il dot ibm.com
@ 2011-12-28 13:02 ` michael.v.zolotukhin at gmail dot com
2011-12-28 13:12 ` michael.v.zolotukhin at gmail dot com
` (7 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: michael.v.zolotukhin at gmail dot com @ 2011-12-28 13:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51693
--- Comment #3 from Michael Zolotukhin <michael.v.zolotukhin at gmail dot com> 2011-12-28 12:59:24 UTC ---
Created attachment 26195
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26195
AVX2 vect dump
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/51693] New XPASSes in vectorizer testsuite on powerpc64-suse-linux
2011-12-28 11:06 [Bug testsuite/51693] New: New XPASSes in vectorizer testsuite on powerpc64-suse-linux irar at il dot ibm.com
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2011-12-28 13:02 ` michael.v.zolotukhin at gmail dot com
@ 2011-12-28 13:12 ` michael.v.zolotukhin at gmail dot com
2011-12-28 13:45 ` irar at il dot ibm.com
` (6 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: michael.v.zolotukhin at gmail dot com @ 2011-12-28 13:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51693
--- Comment #4 from Michael Zolotukhin <michael.v.zolotukhin at gmail dot com> 2011-12-28 13:01:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> > I though that if {vect_aligned_arrays} isn't true, than arrays could
> > be aligned even after peeling - that's why I added such check.
>
> Sorry, I don't understand this sentence. What do you mean by aligned after
> peeling? Could you please explain what exactly happens on AVX (a dump file with
> -fdump-tree-vect-details would be the best thing).
Sorry, I misspelled. I meant "than arrays couldn't be aligned" - at least
without some runtime checks. I.e. we can't peel some compile-time-known number
of iterations and be sure that array become aligned.
E.g., if we have array IA of ints aligned to 16-bytes, and we have access
IA[i+3], then peeling of one iteration will guarantee alignment to 16-byte. But
we don't know, how much iterations needs to be peeled to reach alignment to
32-bytes (as needed for AVX operations).
> > Unfortunately, I can't reproduce these fails, as I have no PowerPC. By
> > the way, if arrays aren't aligned on Power, why does GCC produce such
> > messages - does it really try to peel something?
>
> The arrays in the tests are aligned. I said that I think that we can't promise
> that all the arrays are vector aligned on power. BTW, we can peel for unknown
> misalignment as well.
In this case we shouldn't add Power to vector_aligned_arrays, I guess.
> > Maybe we should just
> > refine the check?
> > Anyway, if everything is ok with the tests (in original version) and
> > with gcc itself - we could check not for vect_aligned_arrays, but for
> > AVX. Please check
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-12/msg01600.html and the
> > attached to that letter patch.
>
> I think that everything was ok, but I don't think that using vect_sizes_32B_16B
> is a good idea. I would really like to see an AVX vect dump for eg.
> vect-peel-3.c.
In vect-peel-3.c we actually assume that vector length is 16 byte. Here is the
loop body:
suma += ia[i];
sumb += ib[i+5];
sumc += ic[i+1];
When vector-size is 16, then peeling can make two of three accesses aligned,
but when vector size is 32 that's impossible. That's why using
vector_sizes_32B_16B might be correct here.
Also, I uploaded the dump you asked.
Michael
> Thanks,
> Ira
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/51693] New XPASSes in vectorizer testsuite on powerpc64-suse-linux
2011-12-28 11:06 [Bug testsuite/51693] New: New XPASSes in vectorizer testsuite on powerpc64-suse-linux irar at il dot ibm.com
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2011-12-28 13:12 ` michael.v.zolotukhin at gmail dot com
@ 2011-12-28 13:45 ` irar at il dot ibm.com
2011-12-28 18:03 ` michael.v.zolotukhin at gmail dot com
` (5 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: irar at il dot ibm.com @ 2011-12-28 13:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51693
--- Comment #5 from Ira Rosen <irar at il dot ibm.com> 2011-12-28 13:11:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> In vect-peel-3.c we actually assume that vector length is 16 byte. Here is the
> loop body:
> suma += ia[i];
> sumb += ib[i+5];
> sumc += ic[i+1];
> When vector-size is 16, then peeling can make two of three accesses aligned,
> but when vector size is 32 that's impossible. That's why using
> vector_sizes_32B_16B might be correct here.
Ah, now I understand. I was confused by vect_aligned_arrays, and it's
irrelevant here, right?
Yes, vector_sizes_32B_16B seems to be ok in that case.
Thanks,
Ira
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/51693] New XPASSes in vectorizer testsuite on powerpc64-suse-linux
2011-12-28 11:06 [Bug testsuite/51693] New: New XPASSes in vectorizer testsuite on powerpc64-suse-linux irar at il dot ibm.com
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2011-12-28 13:45 ` irar at il dot ibm.com
@ 2011-12-28 18:03 ` michael.v.zolotukhin at gmail dot com
2011-12-29 8:13 ` irar at il dot ibm.com
` (4 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: michael.v.zolotukhin at gmail dot com @ 2011-12-28 18:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51693
--- Comment #6 from Michael Zolotukhin <michael.v.zolotukhin at gmail dot com> 2011-12-28 16:19:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> > In vect-peel-3.c we actually assume that vector length is 16 byte. Here is the
> > loop body:
> > suma += ia[i];
> > sumb += ib[i+5];
> > sumc += ic[i+1];
> > When vector-size is 16, then peeling can make two of three accesses aligned,
> > but when vector size is 32 that's impossible. That's why using
> > vector_sizes_32B_16B might be correct here.
>
> Ah, now I understand. I was confused by vect_aligned_arrays, and it's
> irrelevant here, right?
Actually yes, you're right. I think, ideally, vect_aligned_arrays should be
somehow checked in such tests, as in them we assume that array's beginning is
aligned - but that's not the rootcause of the xpasses.
> Yes, vector_sizes_32B_16B seems to be ok in that case.
Other two tests (vect-multitypes-1.c and no-section-anchors-vect-69.c) look
like having the same problem - are you ok for similar fix for them too, i.e. is
patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-12/msg01600/vec-tests-avx2_fixes-7.patch
ok for trunk?
Thanks, Michael
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/51693] New XPASSes in vectorizer testsuite on powerpc64-suse-linux
2011-12-28 11:06 [Bug testsuite/51693] New: New XPASSes in vectorizer testsuite on powerpc64-suse-linux irar at il dot ibm.com
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2011-12-28 18:03 ` michael.v.zolotukhin at gmail dot com
@ 2011-12-29 8:13 ` irar at il dot ibm.com
2012-01-04 17:36 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: irar at il dot ibm.com @ 2011-12-29 8:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51693
--- Comment #7 from Ira Rosen <irar at il dot ibm.com> 2011-12-29 07:37:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> > Yes, vector_sizes_32B_16B seems to be ok in that case.
> Other two tests (vect-multitypes-1.c and no-section-anchors-vect-69.c) look
> like having the same problem - are you ok for similar fix for them too, i.e. is
> patch
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-12/msg01600/vec-tests-avx2_fixes-7.patch
> ok for trunk?
Yes, just please don't forget to update testsuite/ChangeLog.
Thanks,
Ira
>
> Thanks, Michael
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/51693] New XPASSes in vectorizer testsuite on powerpc64-suse-linux
2011-12-28 11:06 [Bug testsuite/51693] New: New XPASSes in vectorizer testsuite on powerpc64-suse-linux irar at il dot ibm.com
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2011-12-29 8:13 ` irar at il dot ibm.com
@ 2012-01-04 17:36 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-03-22 9:18 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: ro at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-01-04 17:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51693
Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target|powerpc64-suse-linux |powerpc64-suse-linux,
| |i386-pc-solaris2*
CC| |ro at gcc dot gnu.org
Host|powerpc64-suse-linux |powerpc64-suse-linux,
| |i386-pc-solaris2*
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
Build|powerpc64-suse-linux |powerpc64-suse-linux,
| |i386-pc-solaris2*
--- Comment #8 from Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-01-04 17:35:36 UTC ---
This also affects 32-bit Solaris/x86.
Rainer
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/51693] New XPASSes in vectorizer testsuite on powerpc64-suse-linux
2011-12-28 11:06 [Bug testsuite/51693] New: New XPASSes in vectorizer testsuite on powerpc64-suse-linux irar at il dot ibm.com
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2012-01-04 17:36 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-03-22 9:18 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-07-02 13:02 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-09-02 9:19 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-03-22 9:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51693
Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.7.0 |4.7.1
--- Comment #9 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-03-22 08:27:01 UTC ---
GCC 4.7.0 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/51693] New XPASSes in vectorizer testsuite on powerpc64-suse-linux
2011-12-28 11:06 [Bug testsuite/51693] New: New XPASSes in vectorizer testsuite on powerpc64-suse-linux irar at il dot ibm.com
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2012-03-22 9:18 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-07-02 13:02 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-09-02 9:19 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-07-02 13:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51693
Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.7.1 |---
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/51693] New XPASSes in vectorizer testsuite on powerpc64-suse-linux
2011-12-28 11:06 [Bug testsuite/51693] New: New XPASSes in vectorizer testsuite on powerpc64-suse-linux irar at il dot ibm.com
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2012-07-02 13:02 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-09-02 9:19 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-09-02 9:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51693
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed by r0-114550.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-09-02 9:19 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-12-28 11:06 [Bug testsuite/51693] New: New XPASSes in vectorizer testsuite on powerpc64-suse-linux irar at il dot ibm.com
2011-12-28 11:10 ` [Bug testsuite/51693] " michael.v.zolotukhin at gmail dot com
2011-12-28 12:59 ` irar at il dot ibm.com
2011-12-28 13:02 ` michael.v.zolotukhin at gmail dot com
2011-12-28 13:12 ` michael.v.zolotukhin at gmail dot com
2011-12-28 13:45 ` irar at il dot ibm.com
2011-12-28 18:03 ` michael.v.zolotukhin at gmail dot com
2011-12-29 8:13 ` irar at il dot ibm.com
2012-01-04 17:36 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-03-22 9:18 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-07-02 13:02 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-09-02 9:19 ` pinskia 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).