From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 261533858D3C for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 18:13:39 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 261533858D3C Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.crashing.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kernel.crashing.org Received: from gate.crashing.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id 19CIBS3F026770; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 13:11:43 -0500 Received: (from segher@localhost) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id 19CIB7G3026717; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 13:11:07 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: gate.crashing.org: segher set sender to segher@kernel.crashing.org using -f Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2021 13:11:02 -0500 From: Segher Boessenkool To: Martin Sebor Cc: Hongtao Liu , "Kewen.Lin" , Bill Schmidt , GCC Patches , David Edelsohn Subject: Re: [PATCH] rs6000/test: Adjust some cases due to O2 vect [PR102658] Message-ID: <20211012181102.GJ10333@gate.crashing.org> References: <0e964ac9-0e58-33c1-c0ab-24b7f1c60be3@linux.ibm.com> <20211011153050.GV10333@gate.crashing.org> <9bb2743f-cd23-5b7d-6d9d-9917e591377f@gmail.com> <20211011174302.GZ10333@gate.crashing.org> 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-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2021 18:13:40 -0000 On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 02:07:49PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 10/11/21 11:43 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > >I also am okay with this. If it was decided x86 does not have to deal > >with these (generic!) problems, then why should we do other people's > >work? > > I don't know that anything was decided. It was approved though :-) I don't know all history behind it. > I think those changes > were made in haste, and (as you noted in your review of these > updates to them), were incomplete (missing comments referencing > the underlying bugs or limitations). Yeah. > Now that we've noticed it > we should try to fix it. I'm not expecting you (or Kwen) to do > other people's work, but it would help to let them/us know that > there is work for us to do. I only noticed the problem by luck. There is still a month of stage 1 to go, and we are getting >50 new fails every day. Maybe once that dies down we can report anything :-( Segher