On 14 April 2021 21:01:15 CEST, Segher Boessenkool <seg...@kernel.crashing.org>
wrote:
>> > > --- /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).
I meant -times for the occurrences of scan-assembler, not the -not, in case
that wasn't clear.
>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 :-)
Well -times would maybe have caught exactly this I suppose.
I know the exact count can be cumbersome to maintain, but in this very specific
case which checks exactly the desired instruction it may be appropriate.
Just saying, prompted by the typo..
thanks,
