================ @@ -1,20 +1,10 @@ // RUN: not %clang -target powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu -fsyntax-only \ // RUN: -mcpu=pwr10 -mrop-protect %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=HASROP // RUN: not %clang -target powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu -fsyntax-only \ -// RUN: -mcpu=power10 -mrop-protect %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=HASROP -// RUN: not %clang -target powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu -fsyntax-only \ -// RUN: -mcpu=pwr9 -mrop-protect %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=HASROP -// RUN: not %clang -target powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu -fsyntax-only \ -// RUN: -mcpu=power9 -mrop-protect %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=HASROP -// RUN: not %clang -target powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu -fsyntax-only \ -// RUN: -mcpu=pwr8 -mrop-protect %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=HASROP ---------------- mandlebug wrote:
The P10 run step uses the `pwr` format. I think one run step for each mcpu format is adequate. Realistically we should have other coverage that ensures that the 2 formats sets up the same environment and this test could use just one format either way, but since we have a run step for a target greater then 8 anyway I thought to test one of each. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/139607 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
