On Wed, 2018-05-23 at 13:26 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi Carl,
>
> I committed the be/le selectors.
>
> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 08:15:30AM -0700, Carl Love wrote:
> > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/builtins-1-be.c
> > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/builtins-1-be.c
> > @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> > -/* { dg-do compile { target { powerpc64-*-* } } } */
> > +/* { dg-do compile { target { powerpc*-*-* && be } } } */
>
> Does this (and other similar tests) work on 32-bit as well?
>
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/builtins-3-le.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
> > +/* { dg-do compile { target powerpc64le-*-* } } */
> > +/* { dg-require-effective-target powerpc_altivec_ok } */
> > +/* { dg-options "-maltivec" } */
>
> This now should be powerpc*-*-* && le, possibly with && lp64 (but I
> don't
> think we care about 32-bit LE in any of the rest of the testsuite;
> many
> tests will fail there, so I wouldn't bother).
Yea, I thought about doing powerpc*-*-* && le. But yea 32-bit isn't
supported so I figured we didn't want to try and test on that so left
it as powerpc64le-*-*.
>
> With the be/le selectors available, does it help to split the tests
> into
> two still, or can things be better done with just one test, and be/le
> selectors on each scan-assembler-times that needs one?
The thing is the counts for probably 75% of the instructions is the
same for be/le. Trying to maintain the be/le files and making sure we
have all the builtin tests accounted for in each file is a pain in the
..... So, yea given we now have the le/be qualifier we should try and
go with a single file. In the long run I think it is cleaner. Let me
take a shot at combining the tests.
Carl
