On 11/9/23 17:34, Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/3/23 00:18, Patrick O'Neill wrote:
On non-vector targets dejagnu attempts dg-do compile for pr95401.cc.
This produces a command like this:
g++ pr95401.cc pr95401a.cc -S -o pr95401.s
which isn't valid (gcc does not accept multiple input files when using
-S with -o).
This patch adds require-effective-target vect_int to avoid the case
where the testcase is invoked with dg-do compile.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.dg/vect/pr95401.cc: Add require-effective-target vect_int.
Sorry, I must be missing something here. I fail to see how adding an
effective target check would/should impact the problem you've
described above with the dg-additional-sources interaction with -S.
It's not intuitive (& probably not the cleanest way of solving it).
pr95401.cc is an invalid testcase when run with dg-do compile (for the
reasons above).
pr95401.cc
<https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=blob;f=gcc/testsuite/g%2B%2B.dg/vect/pr95401.cc;h=6a56dab095722b01d912416352df17f0d91dfd27;hb=HEAD>
does not define a dg-do, which means it uses the testcase uses
dg-do-what-default
<https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=blob;f=gcc/testsuite/g%2B%2B.dg/vect/vect.exp;h=fc77120a83173c65ad147e8bb7c29ac82f06bb6d;hb=HEAD#l30>
to determine what to do.
dg-do-what-default is set by target-supports.exp
<https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=blob;f=gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp;h=1a7bea96c1e4ccb8ef30ac7012c04e8d44c5ad01;hb=HEAD#l11532>.
The two options here are set dg-do-what-default run or compile.
On non-vector targets the pr95401 is set to compile (which is invalid).
Ideally we would say if dg-do-what-default == compile don't run, but
AFAIK that isn't possible.
I didn't want to duplicate the check_vect_support_and_set_flags logic to
return true/false since that'll probably get out of sync.
I used require-effective-target vect_int as a proxy for
check_vect_support_and_set_flags (also since the testcase only contains
integer arrays).
That way we do this now:
dg-do-what-default run -> run
dg-do-what-default compile -> skip test
If there's a cleaner/better approach I'm happy to revise.
Patrick
Jeff
