From: Hongtao Liu <crazylht@gmail.com>
To: Antoni Boucher <bouanto@zoho.com>
Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>, "~antoyo" <antoyo@git.sr.ht>
Subject: Re: [PATCH gcc 0/1] [PATCH] target: Fix asm generation for AVX builtins when using -masm=intel [PR106095]
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2022 09:20:00 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMZc-bysP02uFHKAf0-XQu1NA2EN9P7_LL4Gie381ch9TYkpXA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f1e52c2619b010cc176099a3d7daea7abe2223bf.camel@zoho.com>
On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 11:16 PM Antoni Boucher <bouanto@zoho.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the review.
> Does this mean I can commit it, assuming the output of compare_tests is
> good?
Yes.
>
> By the way, I wanted to mention that it was my first time playing with
> the assembly generation, so I was not sure about my changes (even
> though it makes the test case compile, I'm not sure it doesn't have any
> unintended side effects):
> It looked to me that the register qualifiers should be the same for
> both AT&T and Intel syntaxes, but I'm might be wrong about this.
Yes for the case in your patch, I think it's a typo.
But there could be some difference for operand modifiers between AT&T
and Intel syntaxes in some patterns.
.i.e the use of mode attr <iptr>.
>
> On Tue, 2022-06-28 at 14:22 +0800, Hongtao Liu wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 9:26 AM ~antoyo via Gcc-patches
> > <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi.
> > >
> > > This fixes the following bug:
> > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106095
> > The patch LGTM, thanks for handling this.
> > >
> > > It's the first time I work outside of the jit component, so please
> > > tell
> > > me if I forgot anything.
> > >
> > > Here are the results of running the test:
> > >
> > > === gcc Summary ===
> > >
> > > # of expected passes 182481
> > > # of unexpected failures 91
> > > # of unexpected successes 20
> > > # of expected failures 1475
> > > # of unsupported tests 2535
> > >
> > > === g++ Summary ===
> > >
> > > # of expected passes 231596
> > > # of unexpected failures 1
> > > # of expected failures 2083
> > > # of unsupported tests 9948
> > >
> > > === jit Summary ===
> > >
> > > # of expected passes 14542
> > > # of unexpected failures 1
> > >
> > > === libstdc++ Summary ===
> > >
> > > # of expected passes 15538
> > > # of expected failures 95
> > > # of unsupported tests 653
> > >
> > > === libgomp Summary ===
> > >
> > > # of expected passes 5012
> > > # of expected failures 33
> > > # of unsupported tests 323
> > >
> > > === libitm Summary ===
> > >
> > > # of expected passes 44
> > > # of expected failures 3
> > > # of unsupported tests 1
> > >
> > > === libatomic Summary ===
> > >
> > > # of expected passes 54
> > >
> > > It's the first time I run the whole testsuite, so I'm not sure if
> > > those
> > > failures are normal. I got more unexpected failures for the gcc
> > > tests
> > > than what is shown in https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-
> > > testresults/2022-June/764154.html. In any case, I get the same
> > > failures
> > > when running the testsuite on master. Perhaps my configure command
> > > is
> > > wrong? I used the following:
> > You can use ./contrib/compare_tests to see if there's no failure or
> > new pass.
> > ./contrib/compara_tests is under gcc top directory.
> > >
> > > ../../gcc/configure --enable-host-shared --enable-
> > > languages=c,jit,c++,lto --enable-checking=release
> > > --prefix=(pwd)/../install
> > >
> > --enable-checking=release will give up some internal checks to
> > increase the compilation speed, for the development trunk, it is
> > better not to use release.
> > > Thanks for the review.
> > >
> > > Antoni Boucher (1):
> > > target: Fix asm generation for AVX builtins when using -
> > > masm=intel
> > > [PR106095]
> > >
> > > gcc/config/i386/sse.md | 10 ++---
> > > gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr106095.c | 47
> > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > 2 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > > create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr106095.c
> > >
> > > --
> > > 2.34.2
> >
> >
> >
>
--
BR,
Hongtao
prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-06-29 1:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-06-28 1:26 ~antoyo
2022-06-26 22:49 ` [PATCH gcc 1/1] " ~antoyo
2022-06-28 6:22 ` [PATCH gcc 0/1] [PATCH] " Hongtao Liu
2022-06-28 15:16 ` Antoni Boucher
2022-06-29 1:20 ` Hongtao Liu [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAMZc-bysP02uFHKAf0-XQu1NA2EN9P7_LL4Gie381ch9TYkpXA@mail.gmail.com \
--to=crazylht@gmail.com \
--cc=antoyo@git.sr.ht \
--cc=bouanto@zoho.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).