On Wed, 2020-04-08 at 12:27 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Mar 27, 2020, Alexandre Oliva <ol...@adacore.com> wrote:
>
> > So, here are some potential fixes:
> > - install the patchlet for fp16-aapcs-3.c above, and be done with it
> > - add an arm_fp16_hw requirement to this test
> > - add to check_effective_target_arm_fp16_alternative_ok_nocache above a
> > check for arm_fp16, besides arm32.
> > Unrelated potential fix, assuming it's a cut&pasto rather than intended:
> > - drop the et_arm_neon_fp16_flags settings from the unrelated (?)
> > check_effective_target_arm_fp16_alternative_ok_nocache
>
> Here's the patchlet turned into a patch submission:
>
>
> add missing fp16 options
>
> dg-require-effective-target arm_fp16_alternative_ok may pass even when
> arm_fp16_ok doesn't, and the latter's failure inhibits dg-add-options
> arm_fp16_alternative. Requiring arm_fp16_ok would disable the test,
> but if we just pass it the -mfp16-format=alternative option, it passes
> even without arm_fp16_ok. Sibling test fp16-aapcs-4.c underwent a
> similar change, so I'm proposing the explicit option to fp16-aapcs-3.c
> as well.
>
> Tested with an arm-eabi cross compiler configured for a machine with
> -mfloat-abi=hard -mfpu=vfpv3-d16. Ok to install?
>
>
> for gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
>
> * gcc.target/arm/fp16-aapcs-3.c: Explicitly use the
> -mfp16-format=alternative option.
OK
jeff
>
