On 6/12/18 3:25 PM, Will Schmidt wrote:
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-neg-int.c
> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-neg-int.c
> index 4f35856..4cdcc35 100644
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-neg-int.c
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/fo
On Thu, 2018-06-14 at 17:16 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 03:25:20PM -0500, Will Schmidt wrote:
> > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-neg-int.c
> > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-neg-int.c
> > @@ -1,11 +1,11 @@
> > /* Verify that
Hi!
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 03:25:20PM -0500, Will Schmidt wrote:
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-neg-int.c
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-neg-int.c
> @@ -1,11 +1,11 @@
> /* Verify that overloaded built-ins for vec_neg with int
> inputs produce the right c
Hi,
A few of our vec_neg related tests are failing in some environments.
Clean up the options and requires stanzas to avoid running the tests where
the vec_neg() intrinsic does not work.
OK for trunk?
Thanks
-Will
[testsuite]
2018-06-12 Will Schmidt
* gcc.target/powerpc
