On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 11:14:16AM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> on 2022/8/8 14:04, HAO CHEN GUI wrote:
> > +/* { dg-do run { target { has_arch_ppc64 } } } */
> > +/* { dg-options "-O2 -mdejagnu-cpu=power9 -save-temps" } */
> > +/* { dg-require-effective-target int128 } */
> > +/* { dg-require-effective-target p9modulo_hw } */
> > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {\mmaddld\M} 2 } } */
> > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {\mmaddhd\M} 1 } } */
> > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {\mmaddhdu\M} 1 } } */
> > +
>
> Maybe it's good to split this case into two, one for compiling and the other
> for running.
> Since the generated asm is a test point here, with one separated case for
> compiling, we
> can still have that part of test coverage on hosts which are unable to run
> this case.
> You can move functions multiply_add and multiply_addu into one common header
> file, then
> include it in both source files.
Yeah, good point. You cannot make dg-do do different things on
different targets. Fortunatelt just duplicating this test and then
removing the things not relevant to run resp. compile testing makes
things even more clear :-)
> Nit: better to add one explicit "return 0;" to avoid possible warning.
This is in main(), the C standard requires this to work without return
(and it is common). But, before C99 the implicit return value from
main() was undefined, so yes, it could warn then. Does it?
Segher
