From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ua1-x92d.google.com (mail-ua1-x92d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::92d]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9632D3858D20 for ; Fri, 2 Dec 2022 09:39:10 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 9632D3858D20 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Received: by mail-ua1-x92d.google.com with SMTP id c26so1488060uak.5 for ; Fri, 02 Dec 2022 01:39:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=IsoSmCOI5iCrUP4aTPvu1gNfDVlsn071MceLwX64+p8=; b=XjgJ8e57sbo+JaNp5D3ircEYpJMsfif2eb+G6l1/ZuBjmZVPfrImqLTL1I5QwRAeTd j4re3S/h4/gsSOa1KWO1xUghmX6xZdEyPM1fQ0aP9qo6x/BHPoVpEGZVCR8c6Y9ig63d nSxoU5a0oy7QI2HksFMhxssoDSk0xzr3FEcqzsK2cR4K7gZiP03TTA0tMFcyqIeJzw5w 72P6BnVg87ZGaetz/isNP5KyZUZwh4jvPzFS2gh8/y7//9cwTuOd5wfb54Fmd1MxzLUd lR8xKK0DW2GkUZcxBBzS420xBKPipm0Yc/1wMk0YBFV++kdQP1Aq5lWM5XUd/6B0aZvm Gl+g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=IsoSmCOI5iCrUP4aTPvu1gNfDVlsn071MceLwX64+p8=; b=AWZQDOM+D2hdpTvToayA4c+Y0VNyrziwajIalcvyFkqLPeFUCZD1yKQhjJ+1ny1eU2 AoNUu+sAn6O9q3zSDbqAsAOMvDyCVSHcaVfF5V+gleHKuYDSW0mt8cahKHT89Xw1W8+M dGlNeCn5CCfdAsyi6qFN1++v6zQlHA+4ddhKfmags2HzjTmMlFjAEAE0T8tv9qi+CHE9 s1U3+7McudpjxpzAiuvoCG+OMVIu2RPMYGb7MDLdLJ/cq4PiBxdJLgg6UtZewBMFvIcx R7flJkj3EzaI63ZiroVjBHfZ7jeUqqkzTKYanU0882611uVOYCKTAyAMseaR2NF/nBeP TmtA== X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5pmVrEnRTF3MO3rLGSpdqaD7tS3xudroZHeN4ud1a0PqehGcUNuz ReRZhNabMlIhK4W6MBrl9fF7QIo3vgr9eS4AGS4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf7JHJUyLAXBip5Qu/itGQThqIhYpo6YQhvtuOGR2dRjhdmhQHX8BDebf+p4h8soJwopVLcuOcocODLrF3gZf/w= X-Received: by 2002:ab0:37c2:0:b0:418:890a:161b with SMTP id e2-20020ab037c2000000b00418890a161bmr35689500uav.71.1669973949773; Fri, 02 Dec 2022 01:39:09 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Kito Cheng Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2022 17:38:58 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] [testsuite] [riscv] skip ssa-sink-18.c To: Alexandre Oliva Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Rainer Orth , Mike Stump Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,GIT_PATCH_0,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: OK, thanks! On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 5:24 PM Alexandre Oliva via Gcc-patches wrote: > > > On riscv64, despite being lp64, we choose two IV candidates as on arm, > which prevents some of the expected sinking. Add an xfail for it. > > Regstraped on x86_64-linux-gnu, also tested with crosses to riscv64-elf > and arm-eabi. Ok to install? > > > for gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog > > * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-18.c: xfail sink2 on riscv64. > --- > gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-18.c | 7 +++++-- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-18.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-18.c > index 421c78eba50f8..9ac0fc6e4de55 100644 > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-18.c > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-18.c > @@ -207,6 +207,9 @@ compute_on_bytes (uint8_t *in_data, int in_len, uint8_t *out_data, int out_len) > from bb 31 to bb 33" > When -m32, Power and X86 will sink 3 instructions, but arm ilp32 couldn't > sink due to ivopts chooses two IV candidates instead of one, which is > - expected, so this case is restricted to lp64 only so far. */ > + expected, so this case is restricted to lp64 only so far. This different > + ivopts choice affects riscv64 as well, probably because it also lacks > + base+index addressing modes, so the ip[len] address computation can't be > + made from the IV computation above. */ > > - /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Sunk statements: 4" 1 "sink2" { target lp64 } } } */ > + /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Sunk statements: 4" 1 "sink2" { target lp64 xfail { riscv64-*-* } } } } */ > > -- > Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/ > Free Software Activist GNU Toolchain Engineer > Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice > but very few check the facts. Ask me about