On 8/11/20 11:35 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > Hi Alan, > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 06:38:53PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote: >> This fixes a fail when power10 isn't supported by binutils, and >> ensures the test isn't run without power10 hardware or simulation on >> the off chance that power10 insns are emitted in the future for this >> testcase. > > The testcases said it wanted power8, so why did it fail? GCC shouldn't > use anything that requires p10 support in binutils then, or what do I > miss here?
It failed with an assembler error because one of the functions in the test uses an attribute target power10 and GCC emits a ".machine power10" assembler directive in case we do generate a power10 instruction(s). The old binutils Bill used doesn't know about power10, so boom. That is what requires the dg-require-effective-target power10_ok. Now given the power10 function is so small (just a call to a p8 function), the chance we'll generate a p10 instruction is low (zero?), so we could just keep the dg-do run as is (ie, always run), but might that change one day? Peter
