From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 101763 invoked by alias); 19 Dec 2018 08:50:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 101748 invoked by uid 89); 19 Dec 2018 08:50:45 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=clarke, Clarke X-HELO: gate.crashing.org Received: from gate.crashing.org (HELO gate.crashing.org) (63.228.1.57) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 08:50:44 +0000 Received: from gate.crashing.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id wBJ8oTJA004296; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 02:50:33 -0600 Received: (from segher@localhost) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id wBJ8oKjp004284; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 02:50:20 -0600 Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 08:50:00 -0000 From: Segher Boessenkool To: Paul Clarke Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [rs6000] Fix x86 SSSE3 compatibility implementations and testcases Message-ID: <20181219085020.GN3803@gate.crashing.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-12/txt/msg01368.txt.bz2 Hi! On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 10:23:05PM -0600, Paul Clarke wrote: > This patch is the analog to r266868-r266870, but for SSSE3. > The SSSE3 tests had been inadvertently made to PASS without actually running > the test code. Actually running the code turned up some previously undetected > issues. > > This patch fixes some issues in the implementations, fixes up the tests > to use a union for the test data, which avoids strict aliasing issues, > and enables the tests to actually run (by removing a dependency on > __BUILTIN_CPU_SUPPORTS). > > Also, there's a fairly insignificant change in the testcases that walk > through the data as pairs of vectors from: > [0] and [1] > [2] and [3] > ... > [n-4] and [n-3] > [n-2] and [n-1] > > to: > [0] and [1] > [1] and [2] > ... > [n-3] and [n-2] > [n-2] and [n-1] > - for (i = 0; i < 256; i += 4) > + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE (vals); i ++) Please write "i++", not "i ++", throughout. I wonder if the extra overlap will not hide problems? OTOH it is extra testing of course. Okay for trunk. Thanks! Segher