From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yw1-x1133.google.com (mail-yw1-x1133.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1133]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61F293857BBA for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2022 01:20:12 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 61F293857BBA Received: by mail-yw1-x1133.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-31bf3656517so43609217b3.12 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2022 18:20:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=sZ85+qvzwDuDYE0NasMlR6OS+LEKbepgEzn+3birquc=; b=riUz74SzAByFDXTXtkCZq7Ou/MZkcBUIJEstL5kIk757T1IdrN6cYPh+mAHkaIlmpl 7aYOrdeLgYo+0RjGHH2gQnkrILyq+xrj2DnIoNzBz0wYxZMrVW5by/2gHi6eibmA50d/ A82sFuVGeEW0LdDh7vuXmjrDEctI0bdXbm5gNRnvfXO0mTJ7R+wIoTbgPCHCU6QDmuPi O9A59Sjpxd1Cs6j1/f0oB3N9uXPVjlqDQN9Y+a4U1Bim8Qbmub8X+X54sNTOyFhu7OLr 2UVjzQQNsptB7DIFmKNcmEheGNKCYMF74GxSod2mnwAESqpcArjw3X21h83KXc5QMinh YVcg== X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora+yCaewuK94XKnceDsUtgWkJOz0vCdEren64G67EdBbOeSyBaDq zSLLt4NUq8HZ/F8UGpyp6ptds52pPnLHMnQUMvI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1vT3FRDera6/LUu6yVhQgtFiXZ2w5hgdmfZsQEkhLmFfB2w8icROnQQEbCoNEGW7WS6cDcyvQMwWPakvhT+cS0= X-Received: by 2002:a81:cd3:0:b0:317:861c:ac07 with SMTP id 202-20020a810cd3000000b00317861cac07mr1181712ywm.486.1656465611684; Tue, 28 Jun 2022 18:20:11 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <165637956824.13615.7247999336313533072-0@git.sr.ht> In-Reply-To: From: Hongtao Liu Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2022 09:20:00 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH gcc 0/1] [PATCH] target: Fix asm generation for AVX builtins when using -masm=intel [PR106095] To: Antoni Boucher Cc: GCC Patches , "~antoyo" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FREEMAIL_FROM, KAM_SHORT, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) 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: Wed, 29 Jun 2022 01:20:14 -0000 On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 11:16 PM Antoni Boucher 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 . > > 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 > > 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