| Message ID | 201008202133.o7KLX4E09618@lucas.cup.hp.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org wrote on 21/08/2010 12:33:04 AM: > > On some slow (or overloaded) IA64 machines that I use this test still > times out even with the increased timeout factor. Since the loops > aren't vectorized on IA64 (or SPARC) I was wondering if it would make > sense to just skip this test on those platforms instead of running it > and then having an xfail on the vectorization check. This would avoid > having to increase the dg-timeout on the test even more. If the > platform isn't vectorizing it is not clear to me that the test has > any value anyway. > > Tested on IA64 (now shows as UNSUPPORTED) and on X86 (still passes). > > OK for checkin? I am not sure I am authorized to review testsuite patches, but I am OK with this change. Thanks, Ira > > Steve Ellcey > sje@cup.hp.com > > > 2010-08-20 Steve Ellcey <sje@cup.hp.com> > > * gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-pr38969.f90: Skip if not vectorizing. > > > Index: gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-pr38968.f90 > =================================================================== > --- gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-pr38968.f90 (revision 163393) > +++ gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-pr38968.f90 (working copy) > @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@ > ! { dg-timeout-factor 4.0 } > +! { dg-skip-if "" { ia64-*-* sparc*-*-* } { "*" } { "" } } > program mymatmul > implicit none > integer, parameter :: kp = 4 > @@ -18,5 +19,5 @@ program mymatmul > > end program mymatmul > > -! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "vectorized 1 loops" "vect" { xfail > { ia64-*-* sparc*-*-* } } } } > +! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "vectorized 1 loops" "vect" } } > ! { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "vect" } }
On 08/24/2010 12:50 PM, Ira Rosen wrote: > >> times out even with the increased timeout factor. Since the loops >> aren't vectorized on IA64 (or SPARC) I was wondering if it would make >> sense to just skip this test on those platforms instead of running it >> and then having an xfail on the vectorization check. >> ! { dg-timeout-factor 4.0 } >> +! { dg-skip-if "" { ia64-*-* sparc*-*-* } { "*" } { "" } } I am also fine with that change but I wonder about "loops aren't vectorized": Can't they be vectorized, shouldn't they be vectorized, or does it just happen that they are not vectorized? And: How about adding a small comment why the test is skipped? Tobias
Tobias Burnus <burnus@net-b.de> wrote on 24/08/2010 05:08:23 PM: > On 08/24/2010 12:50 PM, Ira Rosen wrote: > > > >> times out even with the increased timeout factor. Since the loops > >> aren't vectorized on IA64 (or SPARC) I was wondering if it would make > >> sense to just skip this test on those platforms instead of running it > >> and then having an xfail on the vectorization check. > > >> ! { dg-timeout-factor 4.0 } > >> +! { dg-skip-if "" { ia64-*-* sparc*-*-* } { "*" } { "" } } > > I am also fine with that change but I wonder about "loops aren't > vectorized": Can't they be vectorized, shouldn't they be vectorized, or > does it just happen that they are not vectorized? According to this thread http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-04/msg02459.html, the loop can't be vectorized because of missing instruction. Ira > And: How about adding a small comment why the test is skipped? > > Tobias
On Wed, 2010-08-25 at 10:18 +0300, Ira Rosen wrote: > > Tobias Burnus <burnus@net-b.de> wrote on 24/08/2010 05:08:23 PM: > > > On 08/24/2010 12:50 PM, Ira Rosen wrote: > > > > > >> times out even with the increased timeout factor. Since the loops > > >> aren't vectorized on IA64 (or SPARC) I was wondering if it would make > > >> sense to just skip this test on those platforms instead of running it > > >> and then having an xfail on the vectorization check. > > > > >> ! { dg-timeout-factor 4.0 } > > >> +! { dg-skip-if "" { ia64-*-* sparc*-*-* } { "*" } { "" } } > > > > I am also fine with that change but I wonder about "loops aren't > > vectorized": Can't they be vectorized, shouldn't they be vectorized, or > > does it just happen that they are not vectorized? > > According to this thread > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-04/msg02459.html, the loop can't be > vectorized because of missing instruction. > > Ira > > > And: How about adding a small comment why the test is skipped? > > > > Tobias I have gone ahead and checked in the patch after adding a comment about why it isn't vectorized. Steve Ellcey sje@cup.hp.com
Index: gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-pr38968.f90 =================================================================== --- gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-pr38968.f90 (revision 163393) +++ gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-pr38968.f90 (working copy) @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@ ! { dg-timeout-factor 4.0 } +! { dg-skip-if "" { ia64-*-* sparc*-*-* } { "*" } { "" } } program mymatmul implicit none integer, parameter :: kp = 4 @@ -18,5 +19,5 @@ program mymatmul end program mymatmul -! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "vectorized 1 loops" "vect" { xfail { ia64-*-* sparc*-*-* } } } } +! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "vectorized 1 loops" "vect" } } ! { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "vect" } }