From: David Miller
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 17:14:59 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Eric Botcazou
> Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 23:08:39 +0200
>
>>> I'm currently testing the following patch in various scenerios, I'm pretty
>>> sure this is what you had in mind.
>>
>> Yes, this seems to go in the right directio
From: Eric Botcazou
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 23:08:39 +0200
>> I'm currently testing the following patch in various scenerios, I'm pretty
>> sure this is what you had in mind.
>
> Yes, this seems to go in the right direction. Don't you need to pass -mvis3
> instead of -mvis? Do you need to pass
> I'm currently testing the following patch in various scenerios, I'm pretty
> sure this is what you had in mind.
Yes, this seems to go in the right direction. Don't you need to pass -mvis3
instead of -mvis? Do you need to pass -mcpu=niagara3 at all?
--
Eric Botcazou
From: Eric Botcazou
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 00:33:43 +0200
>> I see, so we can test the code generation in the testsuite even if the
>> compiler was built against an assembler without support for the
>> instructions.
>
> At least partially, yes.
>
>> But in such a case, I'm unsure if I understan
> I see, so we can test the code generation in the testsuite even if the
> compiler was built against an assembler without support for the
> instructions.
At least partially, yes.
> But in such a case, I'm unsure if I understand why i386.exp needs
> these tests at all. The presence of support fo
From: Eric Botcazou
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 23:08:50 +0200
>> Cool, Eric could you quickly test the following? This still leaves
>> the i386.exp case issue open, it stands to reason that something like
>> -Wall is needed for those tests too.
>
> I think that we should go the i386 way. This work
> Cool, Eric could you quickly test the following? This still leaves
> the i386.exp case issue open, it stands to reason that something like
> -Wall is needed for those tests too.
I think that we should go the i386 way. This works on i386 because the
builtins are always available (when you pass
From: Eric Botcazou
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 21:57:18 +0200
>> I would expect that to spit out a warning. Do I need to explicitly
>> add "-Wall", "-Wno-implicit" or similar? Similar tests in i386.exp don't
>> seem to need this and that was what I used as my template.
>
> -Wall does yield a warni
> What does "gcc -mcpu=niagara3 -mvis" give to you for the following
> source file:
>
> long long
> _vis3_fpadd64 (long long __X, long long __Y)
> {
> return __builtin_vis_fpadd64 (__X, __Y);
> }
Nothing at all, with or without the options.
> That's what the sp
From: Eric Botcazou
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 20:10:34 +0200
>> * gcc.target/sparc/sparc.exp: Add vis3 target test.
>
> This doesn't work. The code always compiles:
What does "gcc -mcpu=niagara3 -mvis" give to you for the following
source file:
long long
_vis3_fpadd64 (long
> * gcc.target/sparc/sparc.exp: Add vis3 target test.
This doesn't work. The code always compiles:
(botcazou@ob) /nile.build/botcazou/gcc-head/sparc-sun-solaris2.10 $
gcc/xgcc -Bgcc -c -o vis.o vis.c
(botcazou@ob) /nile.build/botcazou/gcc-head/sparc-sun-solaris2.10 $ objdump -d
vis.o
vi
11 matches
Mail list logo
