From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-494272-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 58323 invoked by alias); 18 Jan 2019 02:42:53 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 58309 invoked by uid 89); 18 Jan 2019 02:42:52 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Uros
X-HELO: mail-it1-f193.google.com
Received: from mail-it1-f193.google.com (HELO mail-it1-f193.google.com) (209.85.166.193) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 18 Jan 2019 02:42:51 +0000
Received: by mail-it1-f193.google.com with SMTP id m62so4755906ith.5        for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 18:42:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;        d=gmail.com; s=20161025;        h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to         :cc;        bh=fgxY4GtnKsJYKN3TqhTrFLRUq0et4SJlbqN3CYh4Gjg=;        b=kW4IL2jQvXCdha0ITfhITABZmdv4D0EjMdYrJc9YOiBDCBs2MNfexFEdLzelWSUHxp         p9JtwSlgsocGAdWQxfwzREIuMSNE8wxE5cw+r0S87DuL+i8pISM6+6y+vPuvQVyVEFZM         sl4CKHlNZtqSiHA/zxWbWTvw2P38VLGoRua84oFaYMeM7Zl/S8Nmvx/MOh4bZ1qlmgTV         GXTrKfqMlmVMgYoppcabv4heKlOgIeSioB5SC2au456YPVvPINzqTJeVj/Kp18Zf+eLf         qUqa6eFTWspaSDzEg7ii4GAAXHKN+OM+aWrCHCci2CkhGrU2i7Fcv5F8ncUAiz8k3ZMl         5w/A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAHFC=N=eTMgfHWL7fAkbeC6EChPj3q=UA9_Csro9e-Ju1zoThQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAFULd4bPwAVCAmWKXFt1m6GZcFxt+BAAF8V1sUZeEnPFbDku7w@mail.gmail.com> <20190115152050.GP30353@tucnak> <CAHFC=N=TVKQ5q2UhNTu7cZXBaKT8NgDaaj9JG04ufHny+ZO=xw@mail.gmail.com> <20190117130315.GH30353@tucnak>
In-Reply-To: <20190117130315.GH30353@tucnak>
From: Wei Xiao <wei.william.xiao@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2019 02:42:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAHFC=NmTyDMuVg=Rnh6hT5E2k0W-MOihFtsH97h1wB+Tw9cXJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Read avx512vl-vfixupimms*-2.c testcases (PR target/88489)
To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Cc: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>, "Lu, Hongjiu" <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>, 	"H. J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>, M Kretz <kretz@kde.org>, 	"Guo, Xuepeng" <xuepeng.guo@intel.com>, "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>, wei3.xiao@intel.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2019-01/txt/msg01041.txt.bz2

> > > For r267160, I'd expect you want to revert just the config/i386/ part and
> > > keep the testcases, they should work even with the changes reverted, right?
> > >
> > The testcase part also need to be reverted since we have changed them
> > according to the incorrect intrinsic list in SDM.
>
> I don't really understand this.
>
> The testcases succeed just fine for me in the current trunk with all the
> reversions and test something the current state of the testsuite doesn't
> check normally, in particular that the testcases run correctly even when
> -mavx512vl is used.  As that misbehaved in the past, we should make sure we
> don't break that again.
>

You're right. The testcases need to be kept to prevent regression.

> Uros, is it ok to reapply this to current trunk?