Turn out that the pre-commit doesn't pick up the newest upstream when testing 
this patch.

Pan

-----Original Message-----
From: Li, Pan2 <pan2...@intel.com> 
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2024 9:25 AM
To: Jeff Law <jeffreya...@gmail.com>; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai; kito.ch...@gmail.com; rdapp....@gmail.com
Subject: RE: [PATCH v1 1/2] RISC-V: Add testcases for unsigned scalar quad and 
oct .SAT_TRUNC form 2

Opps, let me double check what happened to my local tester.

Pan

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Law <jeffreya...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2024 11:21 PM
To: Li, Pan2 <pan2...@intel.com>; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai; kito.ch...@gmail.com; rdapp....@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] RISC-V: Add testcases for unsigned scalar quad and 
oct .SAT_TRUNC form 2



On 8/18/24 12:10 AM, pan2...@intel.com wrote:
> From: Pan Li <pan2...@intel.com>
> 
> This patch would like to add test cases for the unsigned scalar quad and
> oct .SAT_TRUNC form 2.  Aka:
> 
> Form 2:
>    #define DEF_SAT_U_TRUC_FMT_2(NT, WT)     \
>    NT __attribute__((noinline))             \
>    sat_u_truc_##WT##_to_##NT##_fmt_2 (WT x) \
>    {                                        \
>      WT max = (WT)(NT)-1;                   \
>      return x > max ? (NT) max : (NT)x;     \
>    }
> 
> QUAD:
> DEF_SAT_U_TRUC_FMT_2 (uint16_t, uint64_t)
> DEF_SAT_U_TRUC_FMT_2 (uint8_t, uint32_t)
> 
> OCT:
> DEF_SAT_U_TRUC_FMT_2 (uint8_t, uint64_t)
> 
> The below test is passed for this patch.
> * The rv64gcv regression test.
> 
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> 
>       * gcc.target/riscv/sat_u_trunc-10.c: New test.
>       * gcc.target/riscv/sat_u_trunc-11.c: New test.
>       * gcc.target/riscv/sat_u_trunc-12.c: New test.
>       * gcc.target/riscv/sat_u_trunc-run-10.c: New test.
>       * gcc.target/riscv/sat_u_trunc-run-11.c: New test.
>       * gcc.target/riscv/sat_u_trunc-run-12.c: New test.
Looks like they're failing in the upstream pre-commit tester:

> https://github.com/ewlu/gcc-precommit-ci/issues/2066#issuecomment-2295137578


jeff

Reply via email to