On 8/22/24 4:39 AM, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> on 2024/8/21 21:14, Peter Bergner wrote:
>> - if (ALTIVEC_OR_VSX_VECTOR_MODE (mode) || mode == TImode)
>> + if (ALTIVEC_OR_VSX_VECTOR_MODE (mode) || mode == TImode
>> + || mode == PTImode)
>
> Maybe we can introduce a macro to this file like
>
> #define TI_OR_PTI_MODE(mode) ((mode) == TImode || (mode) == PTImode)
>
> to simplify it a bit and people would likely notice and use this if they
> want to add more handling for TImode in future (then it'll naturally
> consider PTImode as well).
I was a little surprised we didn't have that macro already. Ok, consider
it changed with your suggestion.
I agree, there probably is code in the backend that currently handles TImode
that should probably be changed to handle both by using your new macro.
>> +/* { dg-do run } */
>> +/* { dg-skip-if "" { powerpc*-*-darwin* } } */
>
> Nit: This dg-skip-if line looks not necessary as p8vector_hw excludes
> *-*-darwin*.
I borrowed the dg-skip-if from test cases that use __atomic_compare_exchange
which all ship darwin, so I added it. It was later I added the p8vector_hw
which as you say already excludes darwin, so ok, I'll remove the dg-skip-if
of darwin. Thanks for catching that.
> OK for trunk and all active release branches with/without these nits tweaked,
> but please give others two days or so to comment, thanks!
I'll make the suggested changes and push them to trunk when my new set of
regtests are clean. I'll let it bake there and then push to the release
later. Thanks!
Peter
