On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 02:45:41PM +0000, Tamar Christina wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2024 2:42 PM
> > To: Tamar Christina <tamar.christ...@arm.com>; Richard Biener
> > <rguent...@suse.de>
> > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; nd <n...@arm.com>; j...@ventanamicro.com
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH]middle-end: correctly identify the edge taken when
> > condition
> > is true. [PR113287]
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > Thanks for fixing it, just testsuite nits.
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 03:22:53PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-early-break_100-pr113287.c
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
> > > > +/* { dg-add-options vect_early_break } */
> > > > +/* { dg-require-effective-target vect_early_break } */
> > > > +/* { dg-require-effective-target vect_int } */
> > > > +/* { dg-require-effective-target bitint } */
> >
> > This test doesn't need bitint effective target.
> > But relies on long being 64-bit, otherwise e.g.
> > 0x50000000000UL doesn't need to fit or shifting it by 60 is invalid.
> > So, maybe use lp64 effective target instead.
>
> I was thinking about it. Would using effective-target longlong and
> changing the constant to ULL instead work?
You mean vect_long_long ? Sure, if you change all the longs in the
test to long longs and UL to ULL...
Jakub
