On 2/20/24 3:27 AM, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> on 2024/2/20 02:45, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 10:50:01AM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
>>> it consists of some aspects:
>>> - effective target powerpc_p{8,9}vector_ok are removed
>>> and replaced with powerpc_vsx_ok.
>>
>> So all such testcases already arrange to have p8 or p9 some other way?
Shouldn't that be replaced with powerpc_vsx instead of powerpc_vsx_ok?
That way we know VSX code gen is enabled for the options being used,
even those in RUNTESTFLAGS.
I thought we agreed that powerpc_vsx_ok was almost always useless and
we always want to use powerpc_vsx. ...or did I miss that we removed
the old powerpc_vsx_ok and renamed powerpc_vsx to powerpc_vsx_ok?
>>> - Some test cases are updated with explicit -mvsx.
>>> - Some test cases with those two option mixed are adjusted
>>> to keep the test points, like -mpower8-vector
>>> -mno-power9-vector are updated with -mdejagnu-cpu=power8
>>> -mvsx etc.
>>
>> -mcpu=power8 implies -mvsx already.
Then we can omit the explicit -msx option, correct? Ie, if the
user forces -mno-vsx in RUNTESTFLAGS, then we'll just skip the
test case as UNSUPPORTED rather than trying to compile some
vsx test case with vsx disabled via the options.
Peter
