https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107240
--- Comment #7 from Kewen Lin <linkw at gcc dot gnu.org> --- Well, it does helps vect-bitfield-write-{2,3}.c, but it doesn't help vect-bitfield-write-{2,3,4}.c since they do require vector/vector shift supports. I guess it might be a good idea to add the vect_long_long effective target requirement for these relevant test cases. For now, I don't see we make it effective for powerpc*-*-*, if no objections I'm going to test diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp index fdd88e6a516..29d7b4ebd15 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp +++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp @@ -7059,7 +7059,9 @@ proc check_effective_target_vect_long_long { } { || ([istarget mips*-*-*] && [et-is-effective-target mips_msa]) || ([istarget s390*-*-*] - && [check_effective_target_s390_vx]) }}] + && [check_effective_target_s390_vx]) + || ([istarget powerpc*-*-*] + && [check_effective_target_has_arch_pwr8]) }}] } Although it's not that accurate, as we can have V2DI vector load/store and some operations like bitwise on power7, it's only for testing and the missing scope is very limited.