From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-479039-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 25618 invoked by alias); 2 Mar 2015 18:23:10 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 25541 invoked by uid 55); 2 Mar 2015 18:23:06 -0000
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug testsuite/63175] [4.9/5 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-bb-slp-9a.c scan-tree-dump-times slp2" basic block vectorized using SLP" 1
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 18:23:00 -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: 4.9.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenther at suse dot de
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.9.3
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-63175-4-fEbafis3v2@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-63175-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-63175-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2015-03/txt/msg00183.txt.bz2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63175

--- Comment #23 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On March 2, 2015 7:13:25 PM CET, "msebor at gcc dot gnu.org"
<gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63175
>
>--- Comment #22 from Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
>(In reply to rguenther@suse.de from comment #21)
>> >g:
>> >    .quad    .L.g,.TOC.@tocbase
>> >    .previous
>> >    .type    g, @function
>> >.L.g:
>> >    addis 9,2,.LC1@toc@ha
>> >    addis 10,2,.LC0@toc@ha
>> >    addi 9,9,.LC1@toc@l
>> >    lxvw4x 32,0,9
>> >    ld 9,.LC0@toc@l(10)
>> >    li 10,4
>> >    stxvw4x 32,9,10
>> 
>> But isn't this simply wrong-code?!
>
>I don't see anything wrong with it.  The load seems straightforward
>enough and,
>AFAICS, the store code matches the stxvw4x example in the PowerISA 2.07
>reference (in Storing an Unaligned Quadword to Big-Endian Storage on
>page 360).
> r9 is the address of B and r10 is the byte offset of B[1] from B.

Ah, i only tested with altivec as noted in the bug description. I'll check with
vsx tomorrow.