https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114320
Nathaniel Shead <nshead at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #5 from Nathaniel Shead <nshead at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #3)
> (In reply to Nathaniel Shead from comment #2)
> > Sorry about that. I've not been able to work out what configure flags I need
> > to pass to cause this to error in the first place (I don't normally develop
> > for powerpc and the machine I'm using doesn't seem to fail no matter what
>
> I guess the machine you are using (were referring to) isn't with powerpc
> chip, cfarm provides some powerpc machines
> (https://portal.cfarm.net/machines/list/), both ppc64le (LE -m64) and ppc64
> (BE -m32/-m64), it's recommended to leverage them for building/testing. :)
>
Thanks; I was actually using one of the cfarm machines (cfarm120 specifically),
but on trying a different one I got the errors reported above, and confirmed
that adding '-Wno-psabi' fixed them.
> > flags I try), but am I correct in understanding that just adding
> > "-Wno-psabi" to the tests should stop them from failing? If so I'm happy to
> > push a patch to that effect.
>
> I think so, for now we don't have an effective target dedicated for __ibm128
> type but it's guarded the same as what's for __float128 type (it would be
> relaxed though in future, even with that using ppc_float128_sw should just
> be more strict). Ideally we can add one effective target powerpc_vsx_ok
> (should be powerpc_vsx) to ensure VSX to be enabled, but considering we are
> going to rework it in next release and we don't normally disable vsx
> explicitly, this can be optional.
Thanks, tested and committed as above. Should be fixed.
