On Thu, 16 Nov 2017, Tamar Christina wrote: > Hi Richard, > > > > > I'd have made it > > > > if { ([is-effective-target non_strict_align] > > && ! ( [istarget ...] || ....)) > > > > thus default it to 1 for non-strict-align targets. > > > > Fair, I've switched it to a black list and have excluded the only one I know > should not work. Most of the rest will get blocked by non_strict_align and > for the > few others I'll adjust the testcase accordingly if there are any issues. > > > > But this also raises a question, some targets have defined > > > SLOW_UNALIGNED_ACCESS > > > in a way that uses only internal state to determine the value where > > > STRICT_ALIGNMENT > > > is essentially ignored. e.g. PowerPC and riscv. > > > > > > The code generation *might* change for them but the tests won't run. I > > > see now way to > > > make the test accurate (as in, runs in all cases where the codegen > > > changed) > > > unless I expose SLOW_UNALIGNED_ACCESS as a define so I can test for it. > > > > > > Would this be the way to go? > > > > I don't think so. SLOW_UNALIGNED_ACCESS is per mode and specific to > > a certain alignment. > > > > Ah, right! that slipped my mind for a bit. > > Ok for trunk?
Ok. Richard.