Hi Segher,
on 2020/7/21 上午12:58, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 06:07:16PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
>> +/* { dg-do compile { target { powerpc*-*-* } && { lp64 &&
>> powerpc_p9vector_ok } } } */
>
> Everything in gcc.targer/powerpc/ requires powerpc*-*-* automatically
> (is never run on other targets).
Done.
>
>> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {\mlxv\M|\mlxvx\M} 20 } } */
>
> You can write {\mlxvx?\M} if you think that is better. Each option has
> its own downsides and upsides here ;-)
It looks shorter, done.
>
>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/p9-vec-length-epil-run-4.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
>> +/* { dg-do run { target { powerpc64*-*-* && { lp64 && p9vector_hw } } } } */
>
> Testing for powerpc64*-*-* is always wrong (it doesn't matter what the
> *default* target is: it is usual to run the tests with RUNTESTFLAGS
> {-m32,-m64} for example.
ah, thanks for the correction! I think lp64 is already enough to ensure
it's 64-bit on power, powerpc64*-*-* removed.
>
> Random example from my bash history:
> make check-gcc-c RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=unix'{-m64,-m32}'
> powerpc.exp=volatile-mem.c"
> but my usual is
> make -k -j60 check RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=unix'{-m64,-m32}'"
>
> Other than that this looks fine. Please make sure to test it on an older
> machine as well (you cannot really test on a BE p9, but ideally you would
> do that as well ;-) )
Thanks for the remind, I tested it on P7 BE and got some unsupported cases
expectedly. Checked v1 on P9 BE (aix), the result also looked fine.
>
> So, okay for trunk if all patches that are required for these tests have
> been committed. Thanks!
Thanks!
BR,
Kewen
