On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Gary Funck <g...@intrepid.com> wrote: > On 08/14/12 15:33:10, Joseph S. Myers wrote: >> On Tue, 14 Aug 2012, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> >> > On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 09:20:32PM -0700, Gary Funck wrote: >> > > --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr20020-1.c (revision 0) >> > > +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr20020-1.c (revision 0) >> > > @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ >> > > +/* Target is restricted to x86_64 type architectures, >> > > + to check that 128-bit struct's are represented >> > > + as TImode values. */ >> > > +/* { dg-require-effective-target int128 } */ >> > > +/* { dg-do compile { target { x86_64-*-* } } } */ >> > >> > Given this all the testcases should go into gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/ >> >> And restricting the target to x86_64-*-* is wrong anyway, since any such >> test should also be run for i?86-*-* -m64. Use { target { ! { ia32 } } } >> instead if you want to disable just -m32 testing, { target lp64 } if you >> only want -m64 testing but not -m32 or -mx32. > > How about: > 1. Move the test to gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/ > 2. The comment is amended to read: > /* Check that 128-bit struct's are represented as TImode values. */ > 3. This test is retained: > /* { dg-require-effective-target int128 } */ > 4. This target test is removed: > /* { dg-do compile } */ > > It is possible that "dg-require-effective-target int128" is > too restrictive (in the sense that some x86 target might in > theory support TImode, but not __int128_t), but at least > some reasonable test coverage is guaranteed.
I believe int128 requirement is correct. -- H.J.