On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 1:52 AM Kewen.Lin <li...@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > > Hi Haochen, > > on 2022/5/26 13:30, HAO CHEN GUI wrote: > > Kewen, > > Thanks so much for your advice. Just one question about effective-target. > > > > For the test cases, it needs both power10_ok and int128 support. I saw > > some > > existing test cases have these two checks as well. But I wonder if > > power10_ok > > already covers int128 on powerpc targets? Can we save one check then? > > > > Good question, IMHO the checks are orthogonal, it's doable to disable int128 > support by hacking the compiler, the int128 effective-target check then fails > due to missing defined __SIZEOF_INT128__, but power10_ok check isn't able to > catch that, the test case could end up with possible unexpected result without > the explicit int128 check. > > To me, the int128 check is to ensure int128 type is available and the > power10_ok check is to ensure the power10 specific instructions are supported.
Does Power10 fully support int128 in 32 bit mode? I would expect no, so the additional test is required. Thanks, David > > BR, > Kewen
