On Mar 29, 2026, Richard Biener <[email protected]> wrote: > Moving the test is OK.
I'll split out that big, then. > But the vect_double check looks wrong to me, esp as you are moving a > compile test. Call that unrelated and I'll go for it. I just happened to notice and wonder why we were even trying that testcase with vect_double given that the target didn't have any vectors whatsoever. On ppc, for example, vect_double checks for vsx hw. Why would it be wrong to check analogously for sse2 hw on x86? Conversely, why would it be correct for vect_double to return true for hardware that doesn't have any vectors whatsoever? I realize that the minimum standards set and expected by vect.exp on x86, of compile-time sse2 as the bare minimum, could support the notion of returning vect_double on x86 unconditionally, if vect_double is to be used only within vect.exp tests. But it's a deviation of the documentation and of practice on other targets that follow the documentation. The inconsistency seems undesirable and disturbing to me. That said, there's no regression in that regard. Please let me know whether to resubmit that bit at stage1 or not at all. -- Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://blog.lx.oliva.nom.br/ Free Software Activist FSFLA co-founder GNU Toolchain Engineer More tolerance and less prejudice are key for inclusion and diversity. Excluding neuro-others for not behaving ""normal"" is *not* inclusive!
