On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 04:57:59PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> on 2022/8/31 22:13, Peter Bergner wrote:
> > On 8/31/22 4:33 AM, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> >> @@ -1,7 +1,8 @@
> >> /* { dg-do compile { target { powerpc*-*-* } } } */
> >> /* { dg-skip-if "" { powerpc*-*-aix* } } */
> >> -/* { dg-options "-O2 -mpowerpc64" } */
> >> /* { dg-require-effective-target ilp32 } */
> >> +/* { dg-options "-O2 -mpowerpc64" } */
> >> +/* { dg-require-effective-target has_arch_ppc64 } */
> >
> > With many of our recent patches moving the dg-options before any
> > dg-requires-effectice-target so it affects the results of the
> > dg-requires-effectice-target test, this looks like it's backwards
> > from that process. I understand why, so I think an explicit comment
> > here in the test case explaining why it's after in this case.
> > Just so in a few years when we come back to this test case, we
> > won't accidentally undo this change.
>
> Oops, the diff shows it's like "after", but it's actually still "before". :)
> The dg-options is meant to be placed before the succeeding has_arch_ppc64
> effective target which is supposed to use dg-options to compile. I felt
> good to let ilp32 checking go first then has_arch_ppc64, so moved dg-option
> downward.
These two are independent, but apparently we have a bug here, which will
make what you did malfunction in some cases -- the test will not run for
ilp32 if you have RUNTESTFLAGS {-m32,-m64}.
It should not make a difference, -mpowerpc64 and -m32 should be wholly
independent, and their order should not matter. So the order of the
/* { dg-require-effective-target ilp32 } */
/* { dg-options "-O2 -mpowerpc64" } */
lines should not make a difference either. But it does :-(
Segher
