Re: [PATCH gcc 0/1] [PATCH] target: Fix asm generation for AVX builtins when using -masm=intel [PR106095]

[Antoni Boucher <bouanto@zoho.com>]

Thanks for the review.
Does this mean I can commit it, assuming the output of compare_tests is
good?

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.

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
> 
> 
>