| Message ID | 20171129081851.GV2353@tucnak |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Fix PR tree-optimization/83195 testcase for arm | expand |
Hi Jakub, On 29/11/17 08:18, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Hi! > > The pr82929.c testcase uses store_merge effective target, which is > int32plus && nonstrict_align. Unfortunately, arm is handled for > nonstrict_align wierdly, although it has STRICT_ALIGNMENT 1, it is sometimes > considered nonstrict_align (the only exception apparently). > > Now, the testcase really needs a non-strict alignment target where > STRICT_ALIGNMENT is 0, otherwise the optimization it tests is not > beneficial. So, the following patch stops testing it on arm, and adds > another test where the pointers are guaranteed to be aligned and thus we > can test for the optimization even on non-strict alignment targets. > > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, tested by hand using > a cross-compiler to arm, ok for trunk? > > 2017-11-29 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> > > PR tree-optimization/83195 > * gcc.dg/pr82929.c: Don't check for "Merging successful" on arm. > * gcc.dg/pr82929-2.c: New test. > > --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr82929.c.jj 2017-11-10 15:42:39.000000000 +0100 > +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr82929.c 2017-11-28 17:50:43.705221829 +0100 > @@ -15,4 +15,4 @@ foo (short *p, short *q, short *r) > p[1] = e & f; > } > > -/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Merging successful" 1 "store-merging" } } */ > +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Merging successful" 1 "store-merging" { target { ! arm*-*-* } } } } */ > --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr82929-2.c.jj 2017-11-28 17:47:41.858409094 +0100 > +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr82929-2.c 2017-11-28 17:48:55.264526160 +0100 > @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ > +/* PR tree-optimization/82929 */ > +/* { dg-do compile { target store_merge } } */ > +/* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-store-merging" } */ > + > +void > +foo (short *p, short *q, short *r) > +{ > + p = __builtin_assume_aligned (p, __alignof__ (int)); > + q = __builtin_assume_aligned (q, __alignof__ (int)); > + r = __builtin_assume_aligned (r, __alignof__ (int)); > + short a = q[0]; > + short b = q[1]; > + short c = ~a; > + short d = r[0]; > + short e = r[1]; > + short f = ~b; > + p[0] = c & d; > + p[1] = e & f; > +} > + > +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Merging successful" 1 "store-merging" } } */ Sudi has kindly tried it out and the new test passes on arm, so this patch is ok from an arm perspective. Thanks for fixing this, Kyrill > Jakub
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr82929.c.jj 2017-11-10 15:42:39.000000000 +0100 +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr82929.c 2017-11-28 17:50:43.705221829 +0100 @@ -15,4 +15,4 @@ foo (short *p, short *q, short *r) p[1] = e & f; } -/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Merging successful" 1 "store-merging" } } */ +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Merging successful" 1 "store-merging" { target { ! arm*-*-* } } } } */ --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr82929-2.c.jj 2017-11-28 17:47:41.858409094 +0100 +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr82929-2.c 2017-11-28 17:48:55.264526160 +0100 @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +/* PR tree-optimization/82929 */ +/* { dg-do compile { target store_merge } } */ +/* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-store-merging" } */ + +void +foo (short *p, short *q, short *r) +{ + p = __builtin_assume_aligned (p, __alignof__ (int)); + q = __builtin_assume_aligned (q, __alignof__ (int)); + r = __builtin_assume_aligned (r, __alignof__ (int)); + short a = q[0]; + short b = q[1]; + short c = ~a; + short d = r[0]; + short e = r[1]; + short f = ~b; + p[0] = c & d; + p[1] = e & f; +} + +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Merging successful" 1 "store-merging" } } */