From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [195.135.223.130]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A38E43858C5E for ; Mon, 4 Dec 2023 12:01:47 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org A38E43858C5E Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.de Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.de ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org A38E43858C5E Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=195.135.223.130 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1701691308; cv=none; b=W/z6oml9hfWV3y0Ad2KkGY0JMN20O6n+wCBSwZHvg/8kkMEkr9zC8ygHRpXuJYupOtp+imdVsvsgTMtKKhoT64pnBQqDnwDHDgEVitDnM2tHg48OQ2h6HCbJWSneKT+2zF7mWFhRxqFFBlBt+Fi9/847H7JwHO93xIeUt5jTPYE= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1701691308; c=relaxed/simple; bh=dfOJ18EU9S2XeLzRdXW8rp8Ko4IEEdORQLtZg+q9ouo=; h=DKIM-Signature:DKIM-Signature:Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID: MIME-Version; b=r2W2CRkcLXca1CRX+/Jk0nTbOxa4++Db6g1NXLwdtQsTpybiiOc83XEvgVt77M13hVlH37f41U/liGa4QR+BzPL9lEtptr6qVBNNk71KJ7KgUNjT4wN3eEBGiD7jetLE09vxNJzHOAvqf5nfbsA86wi0B58rsXgxngYnJ4RIQD4= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org Received: from [10.168.4.150] (unknown [10.168.4.150]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 842F92209F; Mon, 4 Dec 2023 12:01:46 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1701691306; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=wyBBxSGPzAI+3KQnv/KqMEb/0llMR8IGSVfcQjZRcEA=; b=zgummb6vzABEACTC/pBSKUs0HfdeQjDYjPZLVIglGIUZSZc0zTwl5h6KY6+hMtFmy8dZr+ xQAjR0jtj+jIxs1y3QyHNia12FJzwwplNrfUCRzC5cLgp/jn2qJkxuKrZc14XgbSLzxMCZ LWQTUm1/11V/dtqIZtVyKlNr4hi5Yrs= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1701691306; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=wyBBxSGPzAI+3KQnv/KqMEb/0llMR8IGSVfcQjZRcEA=; b=H1snXo1NcH6N25C091UCb98QrqYB5/7I7EraFXi6I96518BCHfc540+D9hd0Zsg3wfblOO 6HIsg+4NBo3n5GBQ== Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2023 12:58:03 +0100 (CET) From: Richard Biener To: Hans-Peter Nilsson cc: oliva@adacore.com, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, botcazou@adacore.com, jeffreyalaw@gmail.com, ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE, mikestump@comcast.net Subject: Re: [PATCH] testsuite: scev: expect fail on ilp32 In-Reply-To: <20231201231831.4238420424@pchp3.se.axis.com> Message-ID: <198q96q6-9os5-o2ro-9559-5875n86495r2@fhfr.qr> References: <6f1516e7-f4be-4e13-b04c-8b5c31cae4f7@gmail.com> <20231129180047.1334620430@pchp3.se.axis.com> <20231130170910.5B7C720442@pchp3.se.axis.com> <20231201033538.87F472042C@pchp3.se.axis.com> <5ro82896-4qq5-po26-12p5-97rnnoo31p37@fhfr.qr> <20231201231831.4238420424@pchp3.se.axis.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Authentication-Results: smtp-out1.suse.de; none X-Spam-Level: X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.30 / 50.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; FREEMAIL_ENVRCPT(0.00)[gmail.com,comcast.net]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; DKIM_SIGNED(0.00)[suse.de:s=susede2_rsa,suse.de:s=susede2_ed25519]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.20)[-1.000]; RCPT_COUNT_SEVEN(0.00)[7]; DBL_BLOCKED_OPENRESOLVER(0.00)[suse.de:email]; FUZZY_BLOCKED(0.00)[rspamd.com]; RCVD_COUNT_ZERO(0.00)[0]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; FREEMAIL_CC(0.00)[adacore.com,gcc.gnu.org,gmail.com,CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE,comcast.net]; BAYES_HAM(-3.00)[100.00%] X-Spam-Score: -4.30 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,KAM_NUMSUBJECT,KAM_SHORT,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Sat, 2 Dec 2023, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > > Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2023 08:07:14 +0100 (CET) > > From: Richard Biener > > > On Fri, 1 Dec 2023, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > > > > > > From: Hans-Peter Nilsson > > > > Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2023 18:09:10 +0100 > > > > > > Richard B.: > > > > > > In the end we might need to move/duplicate the test to some > > > > > > gcc.target/* dir and restrict it to a specific tuning. > > > > > > > > I intend to post two alternative patches to get this > > > > resolved: > > > > 1: Move the tests to gcc.target/i386/scev-[3-5].c > > > > > > Subject: [PATCH 1/2] testsuite: Fix XPASS for gcc.dg/tree-ssa/scev-3.c, -4.c and -5.c [PR112786] > > > > > > This is the first alternative, perhaps the more appropriate one. > > > > > > Tested cris-elf, arm-eabi (default), x86_64-linux, ditto -m32, > > > h8300-elf and shle-linux; xpassing, skipped and passing as > > > applicable and intended. > > > > > > Ok to commit? > > > > Digging in history reveals the testcases were added by > > Jiangning Liu , not for any > > particular bugreport but "The problem is originally from a real benchmark, > > and the test case only tries to detect the GIMPLE level changes." > > > > I'm not sure we can infer the testcase should be moved to > > gcc.target/arm/ because of that, but it does seem plausible. > > It's been so long and so many changes since these tests were > regression guards, that the original target has lost > importance. Heck, it was even xfail lp64 at one time! > According to my git dig, it's been adjusted for pass > changes, including reordering and dump output changes. But > you know that; you've been instrumental in many of those > changes. :) > > I'd say gcc.target/arm/ is the one target that's *not* > plausible, as according to Alex result differs between > subtargets. > > > I read from your messages that the testcases pass on arm*-*-*? > > Yes: they pass (currently XPASS) on arm-eabi and > arm-unknown-linux-gnueabi, default configurations. But, > scev-3 and -5 fail with for example -mcpu=cortex-r5 I see. As said, the testcases test for "cost" things, so that we "regressed" might mean we really "regressed" here. Even the x86 -m32 result is questionable. Of course whether using a single IV makes sense for all archs is unknown. Btw, if we turn the testcases into ones that are (sub-)target specific then we want to again use C code as input. I think at this point we've lost track and I'm juggling between removing the testcases or moving them to a place they succeed (with some specific -mcpu=?) Richard.