| Message ID | CAOvf_xxPh=ROwvoYmmCrq4C2Q=YvQbUJ0xarV8ePs7fW8Gf11g@mail.gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 12:33:52AM +0300, Evgeny Stupachenko wrote: > --- /dev/null > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/blend.c > @@ -0,0 +1,61 @@ > +/* Test correctness of size 3 store groups permutation. */ > +/* { dg-do run } */ > +/* { dg-options "-O3" } */ > + > +#define N 50 > + > +enum num3 > +{ > + a, b, c > +}; > + > +struct flags > +{ > + enum num3 f; Does this really has to be an enum? Doesn't unsigned int there work the same? > +int main() > +{ > + int i; > + long long *rr = (long long *)q[0].a; > + bar(2, q); > + for (i = 0; i < N * 2; i += 2) > + if (rr[i] == -1 && rr[i + 1] == -1) This is aliasing violation, can't you avoid that? I mean, just check the individual struct flags fields? And with the aliasing violation fixed, is there anything i?86 specific left in the testcase (i.e. shouldn't it go either to gcc.dg/ or gcc.c-torture/execute/ instead?)? Jakub
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c index eafc15a..5a914ad 100644 --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c +++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c @@ -47546,6 +47546,7 @@ expand_vec_perm_pblendv (struct expand_vec_perm_d *d) dcopy.op0 = dcopy.op1 = d->op1; else dcopy.op0 = dcopy.op1 = d->op0; + dcopy.target = gen_reg_rtx (vmode); dcopy.one_operand_p = true; for (i = 0; i < nelt; ++i) diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/blend.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/blend.c new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d03bdbb --- /dev/null +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/blend.c @@ -0,0 +1,61 @@ +/* Test correctness of size 3 store groups permutation. */ +/* { dg-do run } */ +/* { dg-options "-O3" } */ + +#define N 50 + +enum num3 +{ + a, b, c +}; + +struct flags +{ + enum num3 f; + unsigned int c; + unsigned int p; +}; + +struct flagsN +{ + struct flags a[N]; +}; + +void +bar (int n, struct flagsN *ff) +{ + struct flagsN *fc; + for (fc = ff + 1; fc < (ff + n); fc++) + { + int i; + for (i = 0; i < N; ++i) + { + ff->a[i].f = 0; + ff->a[i].c = i; + ff->a[i].p = -1; + } + for (i = 0; i < n; i++) + { + int j; + for (j = 0; j < N - n; ++j) + { + fc->a[i + j].f = 0; + fc->a[i + j].c = j + i; + fc->a[i + j].p = -1; + } + } + } +} + +struct flagsN q[2]; + +int main() +{ + int i; + long long *rr = (long long *)q[0].a; + bar(2, q); + for (i = 0; i < N * 2; i += 2) + if (rr[i] == -1 && rr[i + 1] == -1) + return 1; + return 0; +}
I've added the reproducer to the patch. is it ok? ChangeLog: 2014-12-10 Evgeny Stupachenko <evstupac@gmail.com> gcc/testsuite * gcc.target/i386/blend.c: New. gcc/ * config/i386/i386.c (expand_vec_perm_pblendv): Gen new rtx for expand_vec_perm_1 target. On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 7:38 PM, Evgeny Stupachenko <evstupac@gmail.com> wrote: > I mean that there are a lot of people tracking spec2006 stability and > therefore the issue should be on track in future. > And that I can create the test case, but it would be as big as several > GCC functions. > Will work on reducing the test case. > > > On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com> wrote: >> On 12/09/2014 07:59 AM, Evgeny Stupachenko wrote: >>> However patch is fixing spec2006 benchmark. Shouldn't that be enough >>> for regression testing? >>> >> >> No. Spec is not free. >> >> >> r~