RE: [RFC PATCH 0/4] improve coverage of vector backend

..@aurel32.net; pbonz...@redhat.com; > stefa...@redhat.com; cr...@redhat.com > Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] improve coverage of vector backend > > Taylor Simpson writes: > > >> -Original Message- > >> From: Alex Bennée > >> Sent: Thursday, February 3,

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] improve coverage of vector backend

On 2/4/22 07:00, Alex Bennée wrote: Does: #if BYTE_ORDER == BIG_ENDIAN work for your compiler? No, but this does #if __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_BIG_ENDIAN__ With that change in the source, the tests passes. Will that work for other targets? At least not hppa-linux-user. The joy of havin

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] improve coverage of vector backend

edhat.com; >> f4...@amsat.org; aurel...@aurel32.net; pbonz...@redhat.com; >> stefa...@redhat.com; cr...@redhat.com >> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] improve coverage of vector backend >> >> > Any chance the problem is in the test itself (e.g., some sort of >> &g

RE: [RFC PATCH 0/4] improve coverage of vector backend

..@aurel32.net; pbonz...@redhat.com; > stefa...@redhat.com; cr...@redhat.com > Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] improve coverage of vector backend > > > Any chance the problem is in the test itself (e.g., some sort of > > undefined behavior or a 64-bit vs 32-bit difference)? > > It

RE: [RFC PATCH 0/4] improve coverage of vector backend

..@aurel32.net; pbonz...@redhat.com; > stefa...@redhat.com; cr...@redhat.com > Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] improve coverage of vector backend > > Taylor Simpson writes: > > > Quick update - I ran the test on the hardware and have the same error > messages. > > > > So,

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] improve coverage of vector backend

edhat.com; >> f4...@amsat.org; aurel...@aurel32.net; pbonz...@redhat.com; >> stefa...@redhat.com; cr...@redhat.com >> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] improve coverage of vector backend >> >> Taylor Simpson writes: >> >> > Quick update - I ran the test o

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] improve coverage of vector backend

edhat.com; >> f4...@amsat.org; aurel...@aurel32.net; pbonz...@redhat.com; >> stefa...@redhat.com; cr...@redhat.com >> Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH 0/4] improve coverage of vector backend >> >> >> > -Original Message- >> > From: Alex Bennée >&g

RE: [RFC PATCH 0/4] improve coverage of vector backend

; pbonz...@redhat.com; > stefa...@redhat.com; cr...@redhat.com > Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH 0/4] improve coverage of vector backend > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Alex Bennée > > Sent: Wednesday, February 2, 2022 5:16 PM > > To: richard.hender...@lina

RE: [RFC PATCH 0/4] improve coverage of vector backend

edhat.com; > stefa...@redhat.com; cr...@redhat.com; Alex Bennée > ; Taylor Simpson > Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] improve coverage of vector backend > > Alex Bennée writes: > > > Hi Richard, > > > > While reviewing the TCG vector clean-ups I tried to improve the r

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] improve coverage of vector backend

Alex Bennée writes: > Hi Richard, > > While reviewing the TCG vector clean-ups I tried to improve the > range of instructions we tested. I couldn't get the existing hacky > sha1 test to vectorise nicely so I snarfed the sha512 algorithm from > CCAN. The sha512 test is good because it is all pur