Hi! On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 02:59:55PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote: > On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 06:00:51AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 12:29:45AM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote: > > > In PR target/104253, it was pointed out the that test case added as part > > > of fixing the PR does not work on VxWorks because float128 is not > > > supported on that system. I have modified the three tests for float128 so > > > that they are manually excluded on VxWorks systems. In looking at the > > > code, I also added checks in check_effective_target_ppc_ieee128_ok to > > > disable the systems that will never support VSX instructions which are > > > required for float128 support (eabi, eabispe, darwin). > > > > It's just one extra to the big list here, but, why do we need all these > > manual exclusions anyway? What is broken about the test itself? > > > > It would be so much more useful if the tests would help us, instead of > > producing a lot of extra busy-work. > > Those lines were copied from other lines in the power7 era, and have just been > copied since then.
And never updated or given any (second) thought :-( > I agree it is perhaps time to remove these in GCC 13, but I > would be hesitant to remove them now. I can not put in the eabi, eabispe and > darwin lines in check_effective_target_ppc_ieee128_ok, and just add the > vsxworks lines. What I want to see is the tests (in target-supports) to just work, without manual intervention for targets that are even mildly interesting :-( (Btw, powerpc*-*-eabi* would be simpler, more compact, and more correct here!) > With these changes can I check these in and then do a backport later? Eric already approved it. It is fine with me of course, but I do want things to get better eventually! Segher
