From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24291 invoked by alias); 11 Dec 2014 13:46:42 -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 24266 invoked by uid 89); 11 Dec 2014 13:46:40 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-qa0-f51.google.com Received: from mail-qa0-f51.google.com (HELO mail-qa0-f51.google.com) (209.85.216.51) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:46:37 +0000 Received: by mail-qa0-f51.google.com with SMTP id k15so3487185qaq.38 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 05:46:35 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=PbL2VbLZdUGAyBYXJpynx9IbCvN1zzR45D2vaPaeHo4=; b=JQMVH9Xan16GIrdDdHnACJfx9pzK7Qp9QqT/bwNVL9xFGjap16ufe3BHx22xqpeGqW /D+BVxyhvKYlUprO5bBcMWJkIbtRVu+u7QCpEYcXd2i7GJj8EIuzDv8bZ6S48uvoiZYN hF58oahzsqeQCQtxC1ZLgVzGiqDzq0YLOzc4FMrVoePaqADviQo+YmfmrMF+BRI9oEdQ 5AF/RBVXZgpZSAvZwu3GgvBS5p3GrYPYo+0xWSZYi/pOHVvU99anl72WSzlurWbYa6DP aGgfXvVUfIjQXg0Za2juF4baayicYIZMol3h+1IV8E1tmz/luP5kfIg07iwpnBWvzZre InQw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmnhgJdOrGmjOEBEE/0vgPO4Hu7FvJcBHv+f5zarg/7YSX0XaxUkruKqgvaioSGoE/iVDM7 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.98.33 with SMTP id n30mr18847949qge.62.1418305595715; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 05:46:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.140.21.234 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 05:46:35 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <000101d0152b$91105c90$b33115b0$@arm.com> References: <000701cfff29$ea4fbcf0$beef36d0$@arm.com> <000b01cfff4e$aa668090$ff3381b0$@arm.com> <000c01d00310$20bcab60$62360220$@arm.com> <000101d0152b$91105c90$b33115b0$@arm.com> Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:46:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: New patch: [AArch64] [BE] [1/2] Make large opaque integer modes endianness-safe. From: Christophe Lyon To: David Sherwood Cc: "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" , Marcus Shawcroft , Alan Hayward , Tejas Belagod , Richard Sandiford Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-12/txt/msg01010.txt.bz2 On 11 December 2014 at 11:16, David Sherwood wrote: > Hi Christophe, > > Sorry to bother you again. After my clarification email below are you now > happy for these patches to go in? > > Kind Regards, > David Sherwood. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: David Sherwood [mailto:david.sherwood@arm.com] >> Sent: 27 November 2014 14:53 >> To: 'Christophe Lyon' >> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Marcus Shawcroft; Alan Hayward; 'Tejas Belagod'; Richard Sandiford >> Subject: RE: New patch: [AArch64] [BE] [1/2] Make large opaque integer modes endianness-safe. >> >> > On 18 November 2014 10:14, David Sherwood wrote: >> > > Hi Christophe, >> > > >> > > Ah sorry. My mistake - it fixes this in bugzilla: >> > > >> > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59810 >> > >> > I did look at that PR, but since it has no testcase attached, I was unsure. >> > And I am still not :-) >> > PR 59810 is "[AArch64] LDn/STn implementations are not ABI-conformant >> > for bigendian." >> > but the advsimd-intrinsics/vldX.c and vldX_lane.c now PASS with Alan's >> > patches on aarch64_be, so I thought Alan's patches solve PR59810. >> > >> > What am I missing? >> >> Hi Christophe, >> >> I think probably this is our fault for making our lives way too difficult and >> artificially splitting all these patches up. :) >> >> Alan's patch: >> >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-10/msg00952.html >> >> fixes some issues on aarch64_be, but also causes regressions. For example, >> >> ==== >> Tests that now fail, but worked before: >> >> aarch64_be-elf-aem: gcc.dg/vect/slp-perm-8.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects execution test >> aarch64_be-elf-aem: gcc.dg/vect/slp-perm-8.c execution test >> aarch64_be-elf-aem: gcc.dg/vect/vect-over-widen-1-big-array.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects execution test >> ... >> >> Tests that now work, but didn't before: >> >> aarch64_be-elf-aem: gcc.dg/vect/fast-math-vect-complex-3.c execution test >> aarch64_be-elf-aem: gcc.dg/vect/if-cvt-stores-vect-ifcvt-18.c execution test >> aarch64_be-elf-aem: gcc.dg/vect/no-scevccp-outer-10a.c execution test >> ... >> ==== I didn't notice that because I tested Alan's patch only against the advsimd-intrinsics tests. In this respect, I don't understand why your ChangeLog entry says * config/aarch64/aarch64-simd.md (vec_store_lanes(o/c/x)i, vec_load_lanes(o/c/x)i): Fixed to work for Big Endian. since the existing advsimd-intrinsics tests already pass with Alan's patch alone or is vld1_lane still broken (for which I haven't posted a test yet)? >> His patch is only half of the story and must be applied at the same time as the >> "[AArch64] [BE] [1/2] Make large opaque integer modes endianness-safe." >> patch. With both patches applied the result looks much healthier: >> >> ==== >> # Comparing 1 common sum files >> ## /bin/sh ./src/gcc/contrib/compare_tests /tmp/gxx-sum1.10051 /tmp/gxx-sum2.10051 >> Tests that now work, but didn't before: >> >> aarch64_be-elf-aem: gcc.dg/torture/pr52028.c -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer execution test >> aarch64_be-elf-aem: gcc.dg/torture/pr52028.c -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-all-loops -finline- >> functions execution test >> aarch64_be-elf-aem: gcc.dg/torture/pr52028.c -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops execution test >> ... >> ==== >> >> with no new regressions. After applying both patches the aarch64_be gcc testsuite is >> on a parity with the aarch64 testsuite. Furthermore, after applying both of these patches: >> >> "[AArch64] [BE] [1/2] Make large opaque integer modes endianness-safe" >> "[AArch64] [BE] Fix vector load/stores to not use ld1/st1" >> >> it then becomes safe for us to remove the CCMC macro, which is the cause of >> unnecessary spills to the stack for certain auto-vectorised code. So really I >> suppose when I posted my second patch >> >> "[AArch64] [BE] [2/2] Make large opaque integer modes endianness-safe" >> >> I should have really just called this >> >> "[AArch64] [BE] Remove CCMC for aarch64" >> >> in order to make it clear exactly what the purpose of these patches is. well, not yet since this very does not remove it :-) >> >> Kind Regards, >> David Sherwood. > > > >