On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 09:20:32PM +0200, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Apr 2021 11:54:59 -0500
> will schmidt via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> > > + enum rtx_code cond = reverse_condition_maybe_unordered (GET_CODE
> > > (old_cmp));
>
> I think you can drop the enum keyword.
You can in C++, but not in C. It is fine to have it in C++ as well.
I think it is nicer in this case to lose the keyword, but it is hardly
harmful :-)
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/float128-cmove.c
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,93 @@
> > > +/* { dg-do compile } */
> > > +/* { dg-require-effective-target ppc_float128_hw } */
> > > +/* { dg-require-effective-target power10_ok } */
> > > +/* { dg-options "-mdejagnu-cpu=power10 -O2" } */
> > > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler {\mxscmpeq[dq]p\M} } } */
> > > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler {\mxxpermdi\M} } } */
> > > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler {\mxxsel\M} } } */
> > > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not {\mxscmpu[dq]p\M} } } */
> > > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not {\mfcmp[uo]\M} } } */
> > > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not {\mfsel\M} } } */
>
> I'd have expected scan-assembler-times fwiw.
For what? scan-assembler-not *is* scan-assembler-times, in effect (but
simpler of course, and it does work with capturing parens).
Having too strict checks for generated code means no end to having to
update many testcases when we have very small changes in the compiler.
It's a balancing act. But maybe some -times would be good here, dunno.
> > > +__float128
> > > +eq_f128_d (__float128 a, __float128 b, double x, double y)
> > > +{
> > > + return (x != y) ? a : b;
> > > +}
>
> I would think the above should be == since it's named eq_ and
> the body would be redundant to ne_f128_d below as is.
Good spot :-)
Segher
