* [Bug tree-optimization/54868] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/forwprop-22.c FAILs
2012-10-09 9:11 [Bug tree-optimization/54868] New: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/forwprop-22.c FAILs ro at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-10-09 9:12 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-09 9:58 ` [Bug tree-optimization/54868] [4.8 Regression]gcc.dg/tree-ssa/forwprop-22.c FAILs glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: ro at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-10-09 9:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54868
Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/54868] [4.8 Regression]gcc.dg/tree-ssa/forwprop-22.c FAILs
2012-10-09 9:11 [Bug tree-optimization/54868] New: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/forwprop-22.c FAILs ro at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-09 9:12 ` [Bug tree-optimization/54868] " ro at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-10-09 9:58 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-09 13:38 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: glisse at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-10-09 9:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54868
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse <glisse at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-10-09 09:57:58 UTC ---
I expected these 2 lines to disqualify a basic x86 target:
/* { dg-require-effective-target vect_double } */
/* { dg-require-effective-target vect_perm } */
but sadly it looks like they just answer that i386 has hardware vectors :-(
(is that really the case? there seem to be other tests using these checks)
Any suggestion on a better test for targets that really support vectors?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/54868] [4.8 Regression]gcc.dg/tree-ssa/forwprop-22.c FAILs
2012-10-09 9:11 [Bug tree-optimization/54868] New: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/forwprop-22.c FAILs ro at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-09 9:12 ` [Bug tree-optimization/54868] " ro at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-09 9:58 ` [Bug tree-optimization/54868] [4.8 Regression]gcc.dg/tree-ssa/forwprop-22.c FAILs glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-10-09 13:38 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-10 4:59 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: glisse at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-10-09 13:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54868
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse <glisse at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-10-09 13:37:56 UTC ---
Maybe moving the test from tree-ssa/ to vect/ would be enough? Seems like
vect.exp uses check_vect_support_and_set_flags (I don't see how to use that for
a single test).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/54868] [4.8 Regression]gcc.dg/tree-ssa/forwprop-22.c FAILs
2012-10-09 9:11 [Bug tree-optimization/54868] New: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/forwprop-22.c FAILs ro at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2012-10-09 13:38 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-10-10 4:59 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-11 9:05 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
` (4 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: glisse at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-10-10 4:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54868
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse <glisse at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-10-10 04:58:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Maybe moving the test from tree-ssa/ to vect/ would be enough?
I tried that and tested on x86_64, but the test wasn't run then (no trace in
any log). I'll try to look again later, but that might only be in a few days.
If anyone understands how the testsuite works...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/54868] [4.8 Regression]gcc.dg/tree-ssa/forwprop-22.c FAILs
2012-10-09 9:11 [Bug tree-optimization/54868] New: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/forwprop-22.c FAILs ro at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2012-10-10 4:59 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-10-11 9:05 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
2012-10-11 9:25 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE @ 2012-10-11 9:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54868
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> 2012-10-11 09:05:18 UTC ---
> --- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse <glisse at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-10-10
> 04:58:40 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #2)
>> Maybe moving the test from tree-ssa/ to vect/ would be enough?
>
> I tried that and tested on x86_64, but the test wasn't run then (no trace in
> any log). I'll try to look again later, but that might only be in a few days.
>
> If anyone understands how the testsuite works...
Have a look at vect.exp: there are specific naming conventions for
testcases that control how they are compiled.
Rainer
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/54868] [4.8 Regression]gcc.dg/tree-ssa/forwprop-22.c FAILs
2012-10-09 9:11 [Bug tree-optimization/54868] New: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/forwprop-22.c FAILs ro at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2012-10-11 9:05 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
@ 2012-10-11 9:25 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-11 9:57 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-10-11 9:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54868
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-10-11 09:25:34 UTC ---
Which is a terrible idea and should be eventually fixed. IMHO best is
to make sure dg-additional-options works and just adjust all the testcases that
need -ffast-math or similar to use that.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/54868] [4.8 Regression]gcc.dg/tree-ssa/forwprop-22.c FAILs
2012-10-09 9:11 [Bug tree-optimization/54868] New: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/forwprop-22.c FAILs ro at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2012-10-11 9:25 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-10-11 9:57 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-11 13:29 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-11 13:33 ` [Bug testsuite/54868] " glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: glisse at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-10-11 9:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54868
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse <glisse at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-10-11 09:57:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Have a look at vect.exp: there are specific naming conventions for
> testcases that control how they are compiled.
Gah, you are right, thanks. I wish the testsuite weren't that complicated, with
funny different rules in every sub-directory...
I am tempted to create a new subdirectory (with its own .exp file) for generic
vector tests that are not vectorizer tests. A directory where things like
dg-require-effective-target vect_double would actually do what they say... But
check_vect_support_and_set_flags is still not ideal, on x86 it uses -msse2 and
I'd rather have either -mavx2 (compile-only) or whatever the machine supports
(likely at least -msse4 these days).
I'll see if just renaming the testcase in the vect directory is enough for this
testcase.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/54868] [4.8 Regression]gcc.dg/tree-ssa/forwprop-22.c FAILs
2012-10-09 9:11 [Bug tree-optimization/54868] New: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/forwprop-22.c FAILs ro at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2012-10-11 9:57 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-10-11 13:29 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-11 13:33 ` [Bug testsuite/54868] " glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: glisse at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-10-11 13:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54868
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse <glisse at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-10-11 13:28:41 UTC ---
Author: glisse
Date: Thu Oct 11 13:28:27 2012
New Revision: 192359
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192359
Log:
2012-10-11 Marc Glisse <marc.glisse@inria.fr>
PR testsuite/54868
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/forwprop-22.c: Move ...
* gcc.dg/vect/nodump-forwprop-22.c: ... here. Adapt options.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/nodump-forwprop-22.c
- copied, changed from r192348,
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/forwprop-22.c
Removed:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/forwprop-22.c
Modified:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug testsuite/54868] [4.8 Regression]gcc.dg/tree-ssa/forwprop-22.c FAILs
2012-10-09 9:11 [Bug tree-optimization/54868] New: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/forwprop-22.c FAILs ro at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2012-10-11 13:29 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-10-11 13:33 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: glisse at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-10-11 13:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54868
Marc Glisse <glisse at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Component|tree-optimization |testsuite
Resolution| |FIXED
--- Comment #8 from Marc Glisse <glisse at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-10-11 13:33:01 UTC ---
It now works for me on x86. Please re-open if it doesn't work for you. Thanks
for the help.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread