On 9/25/20 8:29 AM, Tamar Christina wrote:
Hi All,This adds some documentation for some test directives that are missing. Bootstrapped Regtested on aarch64-none-linux-gnu and no issues. Ok for master? Thanks, Tamar gcc/ChangeLog: * doc/sourcebuild.texi (vect_complex_rot_<type>, arm_v8_3a_complex_neon_ok, arm_v8_3a_complex_neon_hw): New. diff --git a/gcc/doc/sourcebuild.texi b/gcc/doc/sourcebuild.texi index 65b2e552b74becdbc5474ba5ac387a4a0296e341..3abd8f631cb0234076641e399f6f00768b38ebee 100644 --- a/gcc/doc/sourcebuild.texi +++ b/gcc/doc/sourcebuild.texi @@ -1671,6 +1671,10 @@ Target supports a vector dot-product of @code{signed short}. @item vect_udot_hi Target supports a vector dot-product of @code{unsigned short}.+@item vect_complex_rot_@var{n}+Target supports a vector complex addition and complex fma of mode @var{N}. +Possible values of @var{n} are @code{hf}, @code{sf}, @code{df}. +
Well, "fma" isn't a word. But looking at target-supports.exp, this description doesn't match what's in the source code anyway; there it says this is for "vector complex addition with rotate", not fused multiply-add.
+@item arm_v8_3a_complex_neon_hw +ARM target supports executing complex arithmetic instructions from ARMv8.3-A. +Some multilibs may be incompatible with these options. +Implies arm_v8_3a_complex_neon_ok. +
There should be @code markup on arm_v8_3a_complex_neon_ok at the end. I noticed more existing instances of missing @code markup in similar language for other entries in this table; can you fix those at the same time, or in a separate patch? I consider fixing markup issues like that to be obvious (especially in internal documentation rather than the GCC user manual), so you can just check in fixes like that without waiting for review.
-Sandra
