From: Rainer Orth <ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
To: Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
Cc: sellcey@cavium.com, gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
rdapp@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [Patch] Testsuite fixes for failures caused by patch for PR 80925 - loop peeling and alignment
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2017 14:27:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <yddfud7xvag.fsf@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFiYyc0Qpgzq8jL2SJJHzJr6PCuiQa_ztrJm4WoVGymrkOGEVw@mail.gmail.com> (Richard Biener's message of "Mon, 31 Jul 2017 10:43:21 +0200")
Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 8:22 PM, Steve Ellcey <sellcey@cavium.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 2017-07-28 at 09:47 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 12:16 AM, Steve Ellcey <sellcey@cavium.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Any comments from the power and/or vectorizer folks?
>>> On one side I'm inclined to simplify the testsuite by adding
>>> --param vect-max-peeling-for-alignment=0 in addition to
>>> -fno-vect-cost-model we already pass and override that in the
>>> tests that specifically exercise peeling for alignment (do we have
>>> any?).
>>> OTOH that would remove quite some testing coverage of prologue
>>> peeling.
>>>
>>> So ideally testresults would be clean with both no such --param
>>> and that --param added...
>>>
>>> I think most of the testcases you needed to adjust have nothing
>>> to do with peeling for alignment thus adding this --param just for
>>> those (and simplifying their dump scanning accordingly) is another
>>> pragmatic option.
>>>
>>> Adding yet another target (vect_peel_align) is IMHO not good,
>>> especially as this one depends on cost tuning and not HW
>>> features, so it's impossible(?) to dynamically compute it
>>> with a test compile for example (we _do_ want a clean
>>> vect.exp with any vector HW / tuning switch you add).
>>
>> How about something like the following. I only fixed two of the tests,
>> I can follow up with more if this approach seems reasonable. I tested
>> this on aarch64 and x86_64.
>
> Looks good to me.
>
> Richard.
>
>> Steve Ellcey
>> sellcey@cavium.com
>>
>>
>> 2017-07-28 Steve Ellcey <sellcey@cavium.com>
>>
>> PR tree-optimization/80925
>> * gcc.dg/vect/no-section-anchors-vect-69.c: Add
>> --param vect-max-peeling-for-alignment=0 option.
>> Remove unaligned access and peeling checks.
>> * gcc.dg/vect/section-anchors-vect-69.c: Ditto.
This broke the test on Solaris/SPARC:
+FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/no-section-anchors-vect-69.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 4 loops" 1
both 32 and 64-bit. The dump now has
no-section-anchors-vect-69.c:39:5: note: vectorized 3 loops in function.
and (compared to the gcc-7 branch)
no-section-anchors-vect-69.c:44:3: note: not vectorized: unsupported unaligned store.tmp1[2].a.n[1][2][i_74]
Rainer
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-08-04 14:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-07-27 22:16 Steve Ellcey
2017-07-28 7:47 ` Richard Biener
2017-07-28 18:22 ` Steve Ellcey
2017-07-31 8:43 ` Richard Biener
2017-08-04 14:27 ` Rainer Orth [this message]
2017-08-07 22:28 ` Steve Ellcey
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=yddfud7xvag.fsf@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE \
--to=ro@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=rdapp@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=richard.guenther@gmail.com \
--cc=sellcey@cavium.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).