RISC-V: Fix fails of testcases
Checks
Commit Message
FAIL: gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls-vlmax/vec_extract-run.c -std=c99 -O3 -ftree-vectorize --param riscv-autovec-preference=fixed-vlmax (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
xgcc: fatal error: Cannot find suitable multilib set for '-march=rv64imafdcv_zicsr_zifencei_zve32f_zve32x_zve64d_zve64f_zve64x_zvl128b_zvl32b_zvl64b'/'-mabi=lp64d'
compilation terminated.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls-vlmax/vec_extract-run.c: Fix fail.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls-vlmax/vec_extract-zvfh-run.c: Ditto.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls-vlmax/vec_set-run.c: Ditto.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls-vlmax/vec_set-zvfh-run.c: Ditto.
---
.../gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls-vlmax/vec_extract-run.c | 2 +-
.../riscv/rvv/autovec/vls-vlmax/vec_extract-zvfh-run.c | 2 +-
.../gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls-vlmax/vec_set-run.c | 2 +-
.../gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls-vlmax/vec_set-zvfh-run.c | 2 +-
4 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
Comments
On 6/19/23 17:04, Juzhe-Zhong wrote:
> FAIL: gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls-vlmax/vec_extract-run.c -std=c99 -O3 -ftree-vectorize --param riscv-autovec-preference=fixed-vlmax (test for excess errors)
> Excess errors:
> xgcc: fatal error: Cannot find suitable multilib set for '-march=rv64imafdcv_zicsr_zifencei_zve32f_zve32x_zve64d_zve64f_zve64x_zvl128b_zvl32b_zvl64b'/'-mabi=lp64d'
> compilation terminated.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls-vlmax/vec_extract-run.c: Fix fail.
> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls-vlmax/vec_extract-zvfh-run.c: Ditto.
> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls-vlmax/vec_set-run.c: Ditto.
> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls-vlmax/vec_set-zvfh-run.c: Ditto.
Presumably the target selector in the dg-do ensures we only build/run
these on the appropriate targets now and we don't need explicitly -march
arguments?
Assuming that's correct, this is fine for the trunk.
jeff
>> Presumably the target selector in the dg-do ensures we only build/run
>> these on the appropriate targets now and we don't need explicitly -march
>> arguments?
Yes.
>> Assuming that's correct, this is fine for the trunk.
Thanks.
juzhe.zhong@rivai.ai
From: Jeff Law
Date: 2023-06-20 07:13
To: Juzhe-Zhong; gcc-patches
CC: kito.cheng; palmer; rdapp.gcc
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Fix fails of testcases
On 6/19/23 17:04, Juzhe-Zhong wrote:
> FAIL: gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls-vlmax/vec_extract-run.c -std=c99 -O3 -ftree-vectorize --param riscv-autovec-preference=fixed-vlmax (test for excess errors)
> Excess errors:
> xgcc: fatal error: Cannot find suitable multilib set for '-march=rv64imafdcv_zicsr_zifencei_zve32f_zve32x_zve64d_zve64f_zve64x_zvl128b_zvl32b_zvl64b'/'-mabi=lp64d'
> compilation terminated.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls-vlmax/vec_extract-run.c: Fix fail.
> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls-vlmax/vec_extract-zvfh-run.c: Ditto.
> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls-vlmax/vec_set-run.c: Ditto.
> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls-vlmax/vec_set-zvfh-run.c: Ditto.
Presumably the target selector in the dg-do ensures we only build/run
these on the appropriate targets now and we don't need explicitly -march
arguments?
Assuming that's correct, this is fine for the trunk.
jeff
Committed, thanks Jeff.
Pan
-----Original Message-----
From: Gcc-patches <gcc-patches-bounces+pan2.li=intel.com@gcc.gnu.org> On Behalf Of ???
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 7:15 AM
To: Jeff Law <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com>; gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Cc: kito.cheng <kito.cheng@sifive.com>; palmer <palmer@rivosinc.com>; rdapp.gcc <rdapp.gcc@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Fix fails of testcases
>> Presumably the target selector in the dg-do ensures we only build/run
>> these on the appropriate targets now and we don't need explicitly -march
>> arguments?
Yes.
>> Assuming that's correct, this is fine for the trunk.
Thanks.
juzhe.zhong@rivai.ai
From: Jeff Law
Date: 2023-06-20 07:13
To: Juzhe-Zhong; gcc-patches
CC: kito.cheng; palmer; rdapp.gcc
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Fix fails of testcases
On 6/19/23 17:04, Juzhe-Zhong wrote:
> FAIL: gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls-vlmax/vec_extract-run.c -std=c99 -O3 -ftree-vectorize --param riscv-autovec-preference=fixed-vlmax (test for excess errors)
> Excess errors:
> xgcc: fatal error: Cannot find suitable multilib set for '-march=rv64imafdcv_zicsr_zifencei_zve32f_zve32x_zve64d_zve64f_zve64x_zvl128b_zvl32b_zvl64b'/'-mabi=lp64d'
> compilation terminated.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls-vlmax/vec_extract-run.c: Fix fail.
> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls-vlmax/vec_extract-zvfh-run.c: Ditto.
> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls-vlmax/vec_set-run.c: Ditto.
> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls-vlmax/vec_set-zvfh-run.c: Ditto.
Presumably the target selector in the dg-do ensures we only build/run
these on the appropriate targets now and we don't need explicitly -march
arguments?
Assuming that's correct, this is fine for the trunk.
jeff
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
/* { dg-do run { target { riscv_vector } } } */
-/* { dg-additional-options "-std=c99 -march=rv64gcv -Wno-pedantic" } */
+/* { dg-additional-options "-std=c99 -Wno-pedantic" } */
#include <assert.h>
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
/* { dg-do run {target { riscv_zvfh_hw } } } */
-/* { dg-additional-options "-march=rv64gcv_zvfh -Wno-pedantic" } */
+/* { dg-additional-options "-Wno-pedantic" } */
#include <assert.h>
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
/* { dg-do run { target { riscv_vector } } } */
-/* { dg-additional-options "-std=c99 -march=rv64gcv -Wno-pedantic" } */
+/* { dg-additional-options "-std=c99 -Wno-pedantic" } */
#include <assert.h>
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
/* { dg-do run { target { riscv_zvfh_hw } } } */
-/* { dg-additional-options "-march=rv64gcv_zvfh -Wno-pedantic" } */
+/* { dg-additional-options "-Wno-pedantic" } */
#include <assert.h>