On 10/26/21 10:13, Richard Biener wrote: > On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 8:49 AM Martin Liška wrote: >> >> On 10/18/21 12:08, Richard Biener wrote: >>> Can you please use a subdirectory for the sources, a "toplevel" >>> license.txt doesn't make much sense. You can simply amend >>> vect.exp to process tsvc/*.c as well as sources so no need for an >>> extra .exp file. >> >> Sure, it's a good idea and I've done that. >> >>> >>> Is the license recognized as >>> compatible to the GPL as far as source distribution is concerned? >> >> Yes: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NCSA >> >>> >>> Did you test the testcases on any non-x86 target? (power/aarch64/arm) >> >> Yes, I run the tests also on ppc64le-linux-gnu and aarch64-linux-gnu. >> >> Thoughts? > Hey. > The overall setup looks fine to me. There are quite some testcases > where there are no dg-final directives, some indicate in comments > that we do not expect vectorization - for those do we want to > add scan-tree-dump-not "loop vectorized" or so to make that clear? In the updated version of the patch I added: /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-not "vectorized \[1-9\] loops" "vect" } } */ > For others do we want to add XFAILs so we'll notice when we improve > on TSVC? What type of XFAILs do you mean? > It looks like for example s124 is looking for IVOPTs rather > than vectorization? There are testcases exercising float compares > (s124 is an example), vectorizing those likely requires a subset > of fast-math flags to allow if-conversion and masking, plus masking > is not available on all targets. Is the intent to adjust testcase options > accordingly? No, this is out of my scope, it has already taken me some time... > > That said, I wonder whether it makes sense to initially only add > the parts having dg-final directives (that PASS or XFAIL), just > adding testcases for testing compile looks superfluous. > > All of the testcases are dg-do compile, but vectorizer testcases > ideally would come with runtime verification. I assume the > original TSVC provides this and as you include tscv.h in all > tests I suppose including a runtime harness would be possible, no? All right, I'm adding also run-time checking. It took me some time making array initialization for all tests independent. Plus I reduced number of iterations to 1/10 of the origin. That makes tests quite fast. What do you think about it now? Martin > > Thanks, > Richard. > >> Thanks, >> Martin >> >>> >>> Richard.