From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from resqmta-h1p-028590.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-h1p-028590.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fd02:2446::8]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D80B5386C592 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2024 17:27:17 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org D80B5386C592 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=comcast.net Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=comcast.net ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org D80B5386C592 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=2001:558:fd02:2446::8 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1708018039; cv=none; b=xD2lNf0BQttb+1AUlk4utstHxWhT8anIeCFu7eGUjQev74kDyQTwDioxfPbCsCrtRMuMjqtTbz6c3BrwxhM92mBz8GSuouMgrhclgxY3+9LAiz7G9of858WlA4fB+an1gzBH3yFZyUBZb1/QclUrdMUjlVuo7XO5o5xfy2pPArI= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1708018039; c=relaxed/simple; bh=zCPPRuAYJ375Eolj/8yh7oqZ81vRZDIuVjjtbEYFc/E=; h=DKIM-Signature:Mime-Version:Subject:From:Date:Message-Id:To; b=UkgwWr3C8/u6VaRyIfr8fCTi8NZBgWezcWehCk5mcBt1KfCXV69Zc/1VR1Mv1q5R/1vsjN+DAGRv1YtckLifZbae68i9mzA/80ke2HiDmAkyZ4xkOsE+xZaDLIek+86MBBhvlXsz+O7mECwIQNrO+/apeBheuM+9o6qf0JsgYlw= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org Received: from resomta-h1p-027913.sys.comcast.net ([96.102.179.200]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 256/256 bits) (Client did not present a certificate) by resqmta-h1p-028590.sys.comcast.net with ESMTP id adYir5VMjAzGZafVzrFzaG; Thu, 15 Feb 2024 17:27:15 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=20190202a; t=1708018035; bh=ty6CE9zaas6QXm8iOgJ/MjRBq+1EAPlrtxgdaQrBzO8=; h=Received:Received:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:Date: Message-Id:To:Xfinity-Spam-Result; b=R2byf6UTc56D4S9wmO+0q3qIXV/DO/isQgtOTv7+2Ir47FpXdMKO2e/+wTG/UXnrM 3VhthzJaz5xJQh4gLAbsvCe/56NJ5W3dkaAdbm+tUyd8L7wtX/La3Yy4tSz6J/Q9lG WEdH2ekBM5vdMgVFt7wgcrHdfu3tgFTTGokxC166xkOw079nu+uxGwLbzOaJ/43TUq qekbCDHgz3fXx7GqR6V7Vt1grYz2cyIPASE6yBq5Pfkkte5o8sExIsIfQGpOyagwV/ CjqYWJ/80VlG8icQ7mNjZRsZTYX/a5Ldu+tTSbU8qCQbKOWfggdXKPzLsYE12CzfZn JQPiYm7GrNzUA== Received: from smtpclient.apple ([IPv6:2601:644:907e:710:5047:d837:331c:1311]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 256/256 bits) (Client did not present a certificate) by resomta-h1p-027913.sys.comcast.net with ESMTPSA id afVxrjwJ760PqafVyr89PC; Thu, 15 Feb 2024 17:27:15 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.4\)) Subject: Re: [PATCH] testsuite: Add support for scanning assembly with comparitor From: Mike Stump In-Reply-To: <20240212193815.3771167-1-ewlu@rivosinc.com> Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 09:27:13 -0800 Cc: GCC Patches , gnu-toolchain@rivosinc.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20240212193815.3771167-1-ewlu@rivosinc.com> To: Edwin Lu X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.4) X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4xfDQTe271u3gtv9HEZH/yZ/hr47xpsCegfVUjx4ry3O48pUWp2DeLkDFSMUImscWA9WeKhK0E3lXtnWj/tQM2c0NuI4FP/Q1XAYrBSnqG9Q4emy2e7gA/ 7jngei+SfNrJ+3V6FLOc9+OKMvUJmUsTR9zFWzddQyPvGaKtxBHtrW1eIkD25m+4eCGnjUludMKlmWA/TIB1zlaeot6jZ1mAOvq70Oa4Deh+5A0YcSBk5Rhj U3BUclVGOw9Vwf0CkYdXGHE/bMqeca1q5ynBe2y+yyrgJPteLARu5XNm/vAlJH0HU5okIIRVqgJYRWjEk7EmpJ1GNAvYZ8QfFkTGc8RLRtI= X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,SPF_HELO_PASS,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 List-Id: On Feb 12, 2024, at 11:38 AM, Edwin Lu wrote: >=20 > There is currently no support for matching at least x lines of = assembly > (only scan-assembler-times). This patch would allow setting upper or = lower > bounds. >=20 > Use case: using different scheduler descriptions and/or cost models = will change > assembler output. Testing common functionality across tunes would = require a > separate testcase per tune since each assembly output would be = different. If we > know a base number of lines should appear across all tunes (i.e. = testing return > values: we expect at minimum n stores into register x), we can = lower-bound the > test to search for scan-assembler-bound {RE for storing into register = x} >=3D n. > This avoids artificially inflating the scan-assembler-times expected = count due > to the assembler choosing to perform extra stores into register x = (using it as > a temporary register). >=20 > The testcase would be more robust to cpu/tune changes at the cost of = not being > as granular towards specific cpu tuning. I didn't see an Ok? Just in case you forgot, yes, this is ok.=