On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 01:44:54PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 09:18:35PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> > >From e7ce33cef478a826a2fe4e110b43b49586ef2438 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Alan Modra <amo...@gmail.com>
> > Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2020 15:57:57 +1030
> > Subject:
> >
> > I noticed this test is unsupported on power10 when looking through
> > test logs. There seems no reason why that should be the case, ie.
> > likely the target test was meant to be powerpc64*-*-linux*. And that
> > simplifies down further.
>
> The target name does not tell you if you are doing a -m32 or a -m64
> build; both powerpc-linux and powerpc64-linux can build both 32-bit and
> 64-bit just fine (and hopefully identically). Having target powerpc64*
> is basically always wrong.
Yes. Even le/be selection should really be done with { target le }
for example rather than { target powerpc*le-*-* }. One day we might
want to test compilers with multi-endian support.
> Your patch is fine though, modulo what David said. If there is some
> selector you can use (or you can make one) that is much preferred. But
> since this patch is strictly an improvement already, it is okay for
> trunk (if the 2nd works on powerpc64le-linux of course ;-) ) Thanks!
>
> (Improving it to test on exactly the right targets would be nice :-) )
Thank you, I committed it "as is". An incremental improvement is
better than no improvement.
--
Alan Modra
Australia Development Lab, IBM
