Hi! On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 02:55:03PM -0500, will schmidt wrote: > > > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr96139-c.c > > > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr96139-c.c > > > @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ > > > /* { dg-do run } */ > > > -/* { dg-options "-O2 -Wall" } */ > > > +/* { dg-options "-O2 -Wall -maltivec" } */ > > > /* { dg-require-effective-target powerpc_altivec_ok } */ > > > > But this one as well, why does it not need VSX like the rest? > > I made these changes based on the failures reported when I tested > against older targets, and thats all it seems to want. :-) > > Upon further investigation, it appears that the logic simplifies down > to a BIT_FIELD_REF against the llfoo symbol and the call to printf. > The actual code generation consists entirely of non-vector instructions > (lis,ori,std,addi,... bl..). So it simply does not need the vsx > support.
Ah, this testcase will not actually use vectors at all. It just needs -maltivec for altivec.h to work, and for the "vector" keyword. Okay for trunk. Thank you! Segher