Andrea Corallo via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
> diff --git
> a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/advsimd-intrinsics/vcopy_lane_bf16_indices_1.c
>
> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/advsimd-intrinsics/vcopy_lane_bf16_indices_1.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000000..9cbb5ea8110
> --- /dev/null
> +++
> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/advsimd-intrinsics/vcopy_lane_bf16_indices_1.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
> +#include <arm_neon.h>
> +
> +/* { dg-do compile { target { aarch64*-*-* } } } */
> +/* { dg-skip-if "" { *-*-* } { "-fno-fat-lto-objects" } } */
> +/* { dg-require-effective-target arm_v8_2a_bf16_neon_ok { target { arm*-*-*
> } } } */
> +/* { dg-add-options arm_v8_2a_bf16_neon } */
Realise this probably comes from elsewhere, but why is the
dg-require-effective-target dependent on arm*-*-*? It and the
dg-add-options should usually be used as a pair, with the same
target guards.
In particular:
proc add_options_for_arm_v8_2a_bf16_neon { flags } {
if { ! [check_effective_target_arm_v8_2a_bf16_neon_ok] } {
return "$flags"
}
global et_arm_v8_2a_bf16_neon_flags
return "$flags $et_arm_v8_2a_bf16_neon_flags"
}
will do nothing when arm_v8_2a_bf16_neon_ok is false, and so in that
case I'd expect the testcase to be compiled without +bf16. We'd then
get an error about using a bf16 function without the required target
feature.
Given that that hasn't been causing people problems in practice,
I assume most people testing on AArch64 use RUNTESTFLAGS that support
arm_v8_2a_bf16_neon_ok (as hoped). But in principle it could be
false for AArch64 too. So I think we should just remove the
“{ target arm*-*-* } ”.
Same for the other tests.
OK with that change if it works (for trunk and for whichever
branches need it).
Thanks,
Richard
