| Message ID | 20250202201825.1601025-1-thiago.bauermann@linaro.org |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | bcd3886e6692ba4b7127debcdfe4890199ec9e54 |
| Headers | show |
| Series | arm: testsuite: Adapt mve-vabs.c to improved codegen | expand |
On Sun, 2 Feb 2025 at 21:18, Thiago Jung Bauermann <thiago.bauermann@linaro.org> wrote: > > Since commit r15-491-gc290e6a0b7a9de this failure happens on on > armv8l-linux-gnueabihf and arm-eabi: > > Running gcc:gcc.target/arm/simd/simd.exp ... > gcc.target/arm/simd/mve-vabs.c: memmove found 0 times > FAIL: gcc.target/arm/simd/mve-vabs.c scan-assembler-times memmove 3 > > In PR PR target/116010, Andrew Pinski noted that > "gcc.target/arm/simd/mve-vabs.c now calls memcpy because of the restrict > instead of memmove. That should be a simple fix there." > > Therefore change the test to expect memcpy rather than memmove. > > Another change is that memcpy is inlined rather than called, so also change > the test to check the optimized tree dump rather than the generated > assembly. > > Tested on armv8l-linux-gnueabihf and arm-eabi. > LGTM, thanks. Christophe > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > PR target/116010 > * gcc.target/arm/simd/mve-vabs.c: Test tree dump and adjust to new > code. > > Suggested-by: Andrew Pinski <quic_apinski@quicinc.com> > --- > gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/simd/mve-vabs.c | 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/simd/mve-vabs.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/simd/mve-vabs.c > index f2f9ee349906..e85d0b18ee71 100644 > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/simd/mve-vabs.c > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/simd/mve-vabs.c > @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ > /* { dg-do assemble } */ > /* { dg-require-effective-target arm_v8_1m_mve_fp_ok } */ > /* { dg-add-options arm_v8_1m_mve_fp } */ > -/* { dg-additional-options "-O3 -funsafe-math-optimizations" } */ > +/* { dg-additional-options "-O3 -funsafe-math-optimizations -fdump-tree-optimized" } */ > > #include <stdint.h> > #include <arm_mve.h> > @@ -35,10 +35,10 @@ FUNC_FLOAT(f, float, 32, 4, vabs) > FUNC(f, float, 16, 8, vabs) > > /* Taking the absolute value of an unsigned value is a no-op, so half of the > - integer optimizations actually generate a call to memmove, the other ones a > + integer optimizations actually generate a call to memcpy, the other ones a > 'vabs'. */ > /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {vabs.s[0-9]+\tq[0-9]+, q[0-9]+} 3 } } */ > /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {vabs.f[0-9]+\tq[0-9]+, q[0-9]+} 2 } } */ > /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {vldr[bhw].[0-9]+\tq[0-9]+} 5 } } */ > /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {vstr[bhw].[0-9]+\tq[0-9]+} 5 } } */ > -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {memmove} 3 } } */ > +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "memcpy" 3 "optimized" } } */
Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> writes: > On Sun, 2 Feb 2025 at 21:18, Thiago Jung Bauermann > <thiago.bauermann@linaro.org> wrote: >> >> Since commit r15-491-gc290e6a0b7a9de this failure happens on on >> armv8l-linux-gnueabihf and arm-eabi: >> >> Running gcc:gcc.target/arm/simd/simd.exp ... >> gcc.target/arm/simd/mve-vabs.c: memmove found 0 times >> FAIL: gcc.target/arm/simd/mve-vabs.c scan-assembler-times memmove 3 >> >> In PR PR target/116010, Andrew Pinski noted that >> "gcc.target/arm/simd/mve-vabs.c now calls memcpy because of the restrict >> instead of memmove. That should be a simple fix there." >> >> Therefore change the test to expect memcpy rather than memmove. >> >> Another change is that memcpy is inlined rather than called, so also change >> the test to check the optimized tree dump rather than the generated >> assembly. >> >> Tested on armv8l-linux-gnueabihf and arm-eabi. > > LGTM, thanks. Thanks! Pushed as commit bcd3886e6692 ("arm: testsuite: Adapt mve-vabs.c to improved codegen"). -- Thiago
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/simd/mve-vabs.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/simd/mve-vabs.c index f2f9ee349906..e85d0b18ee71 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/simd/mve-vabs.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/simd/mve-vabs.c @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ /* { dg-do assemble } */ /* { dg-require-effective-target arm_v8_1m_mve_fp_ok } */ /* { dg-add-options arm_v8_1m_mve_fp } */ -/* { dg-additional-options "-O3 -funsafe-math-optimizations" } */ +/* { dg-additional-options "-O3 -funsafe-math-optimizations -fdump-tree-optimized" } */ #include <stdint.h> #include <arm_mve.h> @@ -35,10 +35,10 @@ FUNC_FLOAT(f, float, 32, 4, vabs) FUNC(f, float, 16, 8, vabs) /* Taking the absolute value of an unsigned value is a no-op, so half of the - integer optimizations actually generate a call to memmove, the other ones a + integer optimizations actually generate a call to memcpy, the other ones a 'vabs'. */ /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {vabs.s[0-9]+\tq[0-9]+, q[0-9]+} 3 } } */ /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {vabs.f[0-9]+\tq[0-9]+, q[0-9]+} 2 } } */ /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {vldr[bhw].[0-9]+\tq[0-9]+} 5 } } */ /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {vstr[bhw].[0-9]+\tq[0-9]+} 5 } } */ -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {memmove} 3 } } */ +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "memcpy" 3 "optimized" } } */