Hi,
on 2024/6/14 11:58, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On 6/13/24 9:34 PM, Kewen.Lin wrote:
>> on 2024/6/14 05:16, Carl Love wrote:
>
>>> /* { dg-options "-mvsx" } */
>>> /* { dg-additional-options "-mdejagnu-cpu=power8" { target { !
>>> has_arch_pwr8 } } } */
>
> With the above, we're going to compile and run this test case with
> -mcpu=power8
> or higher, which means we could have P8, P9 or even P10 instructions emitted.
>
>
>
>>> /* { dg-require-effective-target powerpc_vsx } */
>>
>> Since you changed this for "run", I think you also want
>> s/powerpc_vsx/vsx_hw/ .
>
> ...which means we'd need p8vector_hw, p9vector_hw or ... here.
Ah, good catch! Yes, it would require some harder guard.
>
>
> Should we just always compile with -mcpu=power8 and then check for p8vector_hw
> to make our lives easier? Ala...
>
>
> /* { dg-options "-mdejagnu-cpu=power8" } */
> ...
> /* { dg-require-effective-target p8vector_hw } */
>
>
> Note I've removed -mvsx, since that is implied by -mcpu=power8 and no
> need for dg-additional-options. Maybe we want to add -O2 as well?
> Thoughts?
Both sounds reasonable to me, it looks useless to distinguish p8 or p8-up for
this test case.
BR,
Kewen
