[Bug regression/97018] New: [r11 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/l_fma_float_1.c scan-assembler-times vfnmsub[123]+ss 32 on Linux/x86_64 (-m64 -march=cascadelake)

[Bug regression/97018] New: [r11 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/l_fma_float_1.c scan-assembler-times vfnmsub[123]+ss 32 on Linux/x86_64 (-m64 -march=cascadelake)

[skpgkp2 at gmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97018

            Bug ID: 97018
           Summary: [r11 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/l_fma_float_1.c
                    scan-assembler-times vfnmsub[123]+ss 32 on
                    Linux/x86_64 (-m64 -march=cascadelake)
           Product: gcc
           Version: 11.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: regression
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: skpgkp2 at gmail dot com
                CC: hjl.tools at gmail dot com
  Target Milestone: ---

fma test fail on x86, when compiled with -march=cascadelake

Regression link: 

https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-regression/2020-August/073111.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-regression/2020-August/073112.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-regression/2020-August/073113.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-regression/2020-August/073114.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-regression/2020-August/073115.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-regression/2020-August/073116.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-regression/2020-August/073117.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-regression/2020-August/073118.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-regression/2020-August/073119.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-regression/2020-August/073120.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-regression/2020-August/073121.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-regression/2020-August/073122.html

[Bug regression/97018] [11 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/l_fma_float_1.c scan-assembler-times vfnmsub[123]+ss 32 on Linux/x86_64 (-m64 -march=cascadelake)

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97018

Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|---                         |11.0
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2020-09-11
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1
            Summary|[r11 Regression] FAIL:      |[11 Regression] FAIL:
                   |gcc.target/i386/l_fma_float |gcc.target/i386/l_fma_float
                   |_1.c scan-assembler-times   |_1.c scan-assembler-times
                   |vfnmsub[123]+ss 32 on       |vfnmsub[123]+ss 32 on
                   |Linux/x86_64 (-m64          |Linux/x86_64 (-m64
                   |-march=cascadelake)         |-march=cascadelake)
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |WAITING
             Target|                            |x86_64-*-* i?86-*-*

--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Do they PASS on the GCC 10 branch?

[Bug target/97018] [11 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/l_fma_float_1.c scan-assembler-times vfnmsub[123]+ss 32 on Linux/x86_64 (-m64 -march=cascadelake)

[crazylht at gmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97018

Hongtao.liu <crazylht at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |crazylht at gmail dot com

--- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu <crazylht at gmail dot com> ---
There's `-mtune=generic` in the testcase, which will imply 512-bit
vectorization on CLX, but testcase assume 256-bit vectorization.

Add `-mprefer-vector-width=256` or `-mno-avx512f`?

[Bug target/97018] [11 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/l_fma_float_1.c scan-assembler-times vfnmsub[123]+ss 32 on Linux/x86_64 (-m64 -march=cascadelake)

[cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97018

--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu <hjl@gcc.gnu.org>:

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:40e99ed5f4e59c6d0a8e81cd6544c9b4e7ec2fe7

commit r11-3163-g40e99ed5f4e59c6d0a8e81cd6544c9b4e7ec2fe7
Author: Sunil K Pandey <skpgkp2@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu Sep 10 23:17:59 2020 -0700

    Fix fma test case [PR97018]

    These tests are written for 256 bit vector. For -march=cascadelake,
    vector size changed to 512 bit. It doubles the number of fma
    instruction and test fail. Fix is to explicitly disable 512 bit
    vector by passing additional option -mno-avx512f.

    Tested on x86-64.

    gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:

            PR target/97018
            * gcc.target/i386/l_fma_double_1.c: Add option -mno-avx512f.
            * gcc.target/i386/l_fma_double_2.c: Likewise.
            * gcc.target/i386/l_fma_double_3.c: Likewise.
            * gcc.target/i386/l_fma_double_4.c: Likewise.
            * gcc.target/i386/l_fma_double_5.c: Likewise.
            * gcc.target/i386/l_fma_double_6.c: Likewise.
            * gcc.target/i386/l_fma_float_1.c: Likewise.
            * gcc.target/i386/l_fma_float_2.c: Likewise.
            * gcc.target/i386/l_fma_float_3.c: Likewise.
            * gcc.target/i386/l_fma_float_4.c: Likewise.
            * gcc.target/i386/l_fma_float_5.c: Likewise.
            * gcc.target/i386/l_fma_float_6.c: Likewise.

[Bug target/97018] [11 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/l_fma_float_1.c scan-assembler-times vfnmsub[123]+ss 32 on Linux/x86_64 (-m64 -march=cascadelake)

[hjl.tools at gmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97018

H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|WAITING                     |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED

--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> ---
Fixed for GCC 11.

[Bug target/97018] [11 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/l_fma_float_1.c scan-assembler-times vfnmsub[123]+ss 32 on Linux/x86_64 (-m64 -march=cascadelake)

[skpgkp2 at gmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97018

--- Comment #5 from Sunil Pandey <skpgkp2 at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Do they PASS on the GCC 10 branch?

GCC 10 branch has same issue. Same patch should be applied to GCC 10 too.

[Bug target/97018] [11 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/l_fma_float_1.c scan-assembler-times vfnmsub[123]+ss 32 on Linux/x86_64 (-m64 -march=cascadelake)

[hjl.tools at gmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97018

H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Resolution|FIXED                       |---
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
            Version|11.0                        |10.2.0

--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> ---
GCC 10 has the same issue.

[Bug target/97018] [11 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/l_fma_float_1.c scan-assembler-times vfnmsub[123]+ss 32 on Linux/x86_64 (-m64 -march=cascadelake)

[hjl.tools at gmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97018

H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|REOPENED                    |RESOLVED
            Summary|[10/11 Regression] FAIL:    |[11 Regression] FAIL:
                   |gcc.target/i386/l_fma_float |gcc.target/i386/l_fma_float
                   |_1.c scan-assembler-times   |_1.c scan-assembler-times
                   |vfnmsub[123]+ss 32 on       |vfnmsub[123]+ss 32 on
                   |Linux/x86_64 (-m64          |Linux/x86_64 (-m64
                   |-march=cascadelake)         |-march=cascadelake)
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED

--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Sunil Pandey from comment #5)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> > Do they PASS on the GCC 10 branch?
> 
> GCC 10 branch has same issue. Same patch should be applied to GCC 10 too.

They have been failing on GCC 10 branch for a while.  They aren't a recent
regression.  No plan to fix.