From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf1-x42f.google.com (mail-pf1-x42f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42f]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA2EB3858CD1 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 17:06:29 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org AA2EB3858CD1 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=rivosinc.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=rivosinc.com ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org AA2EB3858CD1 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::42f ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1710867992; cv=none; b=cqfqpXDlQrVODZGuOi9j/GASnV6rKZInGcnRSvIRrPZYVpztfOJSqFXbyt5EmaJKt7M+YkLSi3Yhah/bQUjv3udbnbmAXRK1E+6Q7BQWclJkOBd3SNGXFuwANoxDp1ydzYZSOhMdbOS99t8nR1LQSOI16lWBgbplckOjo1BChxs= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1710867992; c=relaxed/simple; bh=q9G2ccpyY2MzBgeVt7ewWn7WWDJHDIOjOIr3Tm4Xqnk=; h=DKIM-Signature:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:From; b=YgS98TKRaJqFr5K9jAsW3EQZ11ZVPJkoyvuhIKrrskvJnBWGrKaY6Rtz5ksvtAvB8niydl1wcqSI1vh5GRmELesXC3H3n+BG4aXrnv9UBUuMwatwAVr4HE7ylmK1u8AtgFQ3rG4T18zmieK/4y0tE+mGbe/JfvBXOTGbtC3CxyM= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org Received: by mail-pf1-x42f.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-6e6a9fafacdso4780552b3a.2 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 10:06:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rivosinc-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1710867989; x=1711472789; darn=gcc.gnu.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=yGxCQCzVquQ04RiU3T2XBg42itX8yMh6qQe0Ngvm1p8=; b=d+4jGeXcbIXieaUByZ1Bm1T+Xn+cKwG7m/4SOeyb+lkvLFrcMBye9vQoQzPru+vEC3 AhO7+Z6FaFzh2kXjnQOE/byn//ZUgBJj8jWAllHAZW1ul9kELdW2LRSt39xrI4y1h94c 0XKISyzicnJHKjnoY7hSRE5O2vv7Z/TKWyHsDJ4Yj109YaW5x5wdxmtQ6v/k1wKEelX9 0TUnntcIRFfRFArtEu/4veLJxqH7SriRQW+QoTCLDXkq2/+DJ6IEtpBR8DmC5QrNGaTO rx2lIkswm2TpC0k7NfbADEsWlKxH1FS2dspqs41m3rY0gxtKaR6J1NKqG5G6acySW9KW TzzQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1710867989; x=1711472789; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=yGxCQCzVquQ04RiU3T2XBg42itX8yMh6qQe0Ngvm1p8=; b=DGB2JDKuMS9dz3U4c0S1Fth1tyjlL4OYwRAc3tLhRfk9A6J0a+qjZqAvPxGhqQwo1c dFrRO1y8RcFewxKqbekkffaiM3CyMW/glAE7FCVn4Vs5hMpa/JI5Oflv0h+JYD4orap3 VJn9DtwQn0MVkStleD5GnCwwP6OR5D/7Ofa5WSp+2n1FbzBf9llDVckYG/hMwez4VtkG D53DBrBij/V+UYlU0xMNKWDudwCA8xWGqQWaxU/ZL2IarjyZ/In5x0YoERDJzkzt1qVg /tKOk/VzOubxmQyUBFcph2W8GP49z1ArIvWwnfUij2irAjXSBTGRaY9hba/gbTdiL2eB BcTg== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVdFa89vB+Vur71hdcJFe0+BeXmySy5S8EYGzrYjkiOXOzBcx3Ior4NBUfpyOkwmzTJyUnOphSc6F/TIdUMJpAaJc6PR3YyKg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwnHuE2xuISPY1NQVw2Vqw70TCPrx4ZDExvXvFRGE8iG3HkRCIa plxQrz0oG61jjNlDboRgL+GMoAFMXZHetHqeA2qaQ2UbfUZr7bL9qQBiCRTLsCg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFGzGJod8LonQwHnRFhq0S1nNv5cxJbFeGtQq7kzaQ2coGbb/6o5ihgSqQENM0hDB34eINKZQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a20:72a3:b0:1a3:6864:94a5 with SMTP id o35-20020a056a2072a300b001a3686494a5mr5943102pzk.16.1710867988698; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 10:06:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.17.83] ([50.213.54.97]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u17-20020a056a00099100b006e77d7edc56sm373428pfg.111.2024.03.19.10.06.28 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 19 Mar 2024 10:06:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 10:06:26 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [Committed] RISC-V: Update test expectancies with recent scheduler change Content-Language: en-US To: Jeff Law , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gnu-toolchain@rivosinc.com References: <20240312215656.1955288-1-ewlu@rivosinc.com> <21fdb734-0504-442f-8fa2-0fa6be62da5a@gmail.com> From: Edwin Lu In-Reply-To: <21fdb734-0504-442f-8fa2-0fa6be62da5a@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,BODY_8BITS,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,GIT_PATCH_0,KAM_SHORT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SCC_10_SHORT_WORD_LINES,SCC_5_SHORT_WORD_LINES,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 List-Id: On 3/18/2024 8:14 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > > > On 3/12/24 3:56 PM, Edwin Lu wrote: >> Given the recent change with adding the scheduler pipeline descriptions, >> many scan-dump failures emerged. Relax the expected assembler output >> conditions on the affected tests to reduce noise. >> >> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: >> >>     * gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/riscv/rvv/dynamic-lmul4-6.c: Disable >> scheduling >>     * gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/riscv/rvv/dynamic-lmul4-8.c: Ditto >>     * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/pr108185-1.c: Update test expectancies >>     * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/pr108185-2.c: Ditto >>     * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/pr108185-3.c: Ditto >>     * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/pr108185-4.c: Ditto >>     * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/pr108185-5.c: Ditto >>     * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/pr108185-6.c: Ditto >>     * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/pr108185-7.c: Ditto >>     * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/vcreate.c: Disable scheduling and update >>     test expectancies >>     * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/vsetvl/vlmax_back_prop-30.c: Disable >> scheduling >>     * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/vsetvl/vlmax_back_prop-31.c: Ditto >>     * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/vsetvl/vlmax_single_block-17.c: Update test >>     expectancies >>     * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/vsetvl/vlmax_single_block-18.c: Ditto >>     * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/vsetvl/vlmax_switch_vtype-10.c: Ditto >>     * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/vsetvl/vlmax_switch_vtype-11.c: Ditto >>     * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/vsetvl/vlmax_switch_vtype-12.c: Ditto >>     * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/vsetvl/vlmax_switch_vtype-4.c: Ditto >>     * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/vsetvl/vlmax_switch_vtype-5.c: Ditto >>     * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/vsetvl/vlmax_switch_vtype-6.c: Ditto >>     * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/vsetvl/vlmax_switch_vtype-7.c: Ditto >>     * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/vsetvl/vlmax_switch_vtype-8.c: Ditto >>     * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/vsetvl/vlmax_switch_vtype-9.c: Ditto > As we discussed last week.  This should go forward as it brings a > better degree of stability to these tests.  Looking forward to cleaner > testresults as my tester has been complaining about this stuff for a > month now :( > > > And a note for the future.  Let's take this one: > >> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/pr108185-1.c >> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/pr108185-1.c >> index 4c6e88e7eed..46d3b5e98d4 100644 >> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/pr108185-1.c >> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/pr108185-1.c >> @@ -60,11 +60,11 @@ test_vbool1_then_vbool64(int8_t * restrict in, >> int8_t * restrict out) { >>   } >>     /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times >> {vsetvli\s+[a-x][0-9]+,\s*zero,\s*e8,\s*m8,\s*ta,\s*ma} 6 } } */ >> -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times >> {vsetvli\s+[a-x][0-9]+,\s*zero,\s*e8,\s*m4,\s*ta,\s*ma} 1 } } */ >> -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times >> {vsetvli\s+[a-x][0-9]+,\s*zero,\s*e8,\s*m2,\s*ta,\s*ma} 1 } } */ >> -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times >> {vsetvli\s+[a-x][0-9]+,\s*zero,\s*e8,\s*m1,\s*ta,\s*ma} 1 } } */ >> -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times >> {vsetvli\s+[a-x][0-9]+,\s*zero,\s*e8,\s*mf2,\s*ta,\s*ma} 1 } } */ >> -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times >> {vsetvli\s+[a-x][0-9]+,\s*zero,\s*e8,\s*mf4,\s*ta,\s*ma} 1 } } */ >> -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times >> {vsetvli\s+[a-x][0-9]+,\s*zero,\s*e8,\s*mf8,\s*ta,\s*ma} 1 } } */ >> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times >> {vsetvli\s+[a-x][0-9]+,\s*zero,\s*e8,\s*m4,\s*ta,\s*ma} 2 } } */ >> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times >> {vsetvli\s+[a-x][0-9]+,\s*zero,\s*e8,\s*m2,\s*ta,\s*ma} 2 } } */ >> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times >> {vsetvli\s+[a-x][0-9]+,\s*zero,\s*e8,\s*m1,\s*ta,\s*ma} 2 } } */ >> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times >> {vsetvli\s+[a-x][0-9]+,\s*zero,\s*e8,\s*mf2,\s*ta,\s*ma} 2 } } */ >> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times >> {vsetvli\s+[a-x][0-9]+,\s*zero,\s*e8,\s*mf4,\s*ta,\s*ma} 2 } } */ >> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times >> {vsetvli\s+[a-x][0-9]+,\s*zero,\s*e8,\s*mf8,\s*ta,\s*ma} 2 } } */ >>   /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times >> {vlm\.v\s+v[0-9]+,\s*0\([a-x][0-9]+\)} 12 } } */ >>   /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times >> {vsm\.v\s+v[0-9]+,\s*0\([a-x][0-9]+\)} 12 } } */ > > This shows an example of how uarch information such as instruction > latency will affect vset counts.  If someone wanted to test that > pr108185-1 can drive the counts of each of those vsets to since > instance, they can certainly #include pr108185-1 and provide suitable > dg directives to set a specific uarch tuning and appropriate dg-final > directives to ensure just a single instance of each vset occurs. > > I'm not expecting you do to this.  Just making a note if someone > really wants to use those tests to verify a specific set of vsets on a > particular uarch. > > > Jeff Committed! Edwin