Hi!
On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 06:22:56PM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On 1/9/20 6:29 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> > On 1/9/20 4:51 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >> Splitting out separate functions in the testcase shouldn't be so much
> >> work? Or am I too optimistic :-)
> >>
> >> This should make the test a good deal less prone to random changes in
> >> output caused by the lunar cycle.
> >
> > Ok, let me take a stab at rewriting the tests to be more similar to the
> > pr92923-[12].c and see how much work that is. I do agree that it would
> > be nice not having the insn counts be so fragile.
>
> Sorry for taking so long to get back to this. I split the functions into
> smaller chunks, but didn't need to go all the way to one function per
> builtin call. Does this look better?
> PR target/93136
> * gcc.dg/vmx/ops.c: Add -flax-vector-conversions to dg-options.
Eww. Well, I guess we want to test that flag as well ;-)
> * gcc.target/powerpc/vsx-vector-6.h: Split tests into smaller functions.
> * gcc.target/powerpc/vsx-vector-6.p7.c: Adjust scan-assembler-times
> regex directives. Adjust expected instruction counts.
> * gcc.target/powerpc/vsx-vector-6.p8.c: Likewise.
> * gcc.target/powerpc/vsx-vector-6.p9.c: Likewise.
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/vsx-vector-6.p7.c
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/vsx-vector-6.p7.c
> @@ -1,41 +1,43 @@
> -/* { dg-do compile { target { lp64 && be } } } */
> +/* { dg-do compile { target lp64 } } */
This worked for LE as well? Nice :-) That isn't supported of course,
but there is no reason to explicitly not test it (or break it more than
it is) :-)
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {\mvperm[r]?\M} 1 } } */
You can write this without the square brackets, fwiw.
Okay for trunk. Thank you!
Segher
