On Wed, 7 Jan 2026, Rainer Orth wrote: > Hi Richard, > > > On Wed, 7 Jan 2026, Rainer Orth wrote: > > > >> Hi Xi, > >> > >> > On Tue, 2026-01-06 at 09:54 +0100, Rainer Orth wrote: > >> >> The gcc.dg/tree-ssa/forwprop-43.c test currently FAILs on 32 and 64-bit > >> >> SPARC: > >> >> > >> >> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/forwprop-43.c scan-tree-dump-times forwprop1 > >> >> "VEC_PERM_EXPR" 10 > >> >> > >> >> The dump has no reference to VEC_PERM_EXPR, so the scan needs to guarded > >> >> by vect_perm. > >> > > >> > It will need to be moved to vect/ directory then. See > >> > https://gcc.gnu.org/PR113418. > >> > >> unfortunately this is not enough: when doing so the test wasn't run at > >> all. This happens because vect.exp only selects part of the files in > >> gcc.dg/vect based on patterns. Apart from forwprop-43.c, four more fall > >> through the cracks: > >> > >> gcc.dg/vect/gimplefe-40.c > >> gcc.dg/vect/gimplefe-41.c > >> gcc.dg/vect/group-no-gaps-1.c > >> gcc.dg/vect/if-cvt-stores-vect-ifcvt-18.c > >> > >> I wonder how best to address this: one could rename them to match one of > >> the existing patterns, probably just vect-*.c. However, future files > >> could well be missed again. > >> > >> Comments? > > > > I had started to transition the various pattern dependent extra > > options to dg-addtional-options but didn't manage to finish. So > > that's the solution, and then simply glob all *.c files. > > that's certainly the cleanest solution. Though largely mechanical, I'm > not sure we want to do this before the GCC 16 release, though.
IMO it's perfect stage4 work. > > But IMO some effective targets should maybe made to work outside > > of vect.exp? I think not all really require it, only some, and it's > > not well documented which? > > That would most certainly be welcome. > > Besides, there's quite a number of effective-target keywords not even > documented in sourcebuild.texi. I mean to add those that have > documentation in target-support.exp, create a PR for the rest to prompt > the authors to fix it, and add a test like gcc.src/maintainers.exp to > ensure things remain that way. No idea when I'll get to that, though. Yeah. Possibly also get an idea on the number of uses of the various effective targets - I'd expect a majority to be only used very few times, thus easy candidates for renaming. The issue with outside-of-vect.exp usage is the use of check_cached_effective_target[_indexed]? I do wonder why we include target-supports.exp from testsuites where it isn't supported? It's name also does not suggest it's not suitable in general :/ Richard. > Rainer > > -- Richard Biener <[email protected]> SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Frankenstrasse 146, 90461 Nuernberg, Germany; GF: Jochen Jaser, Andrew McDonald, Werner Knoblich; (HRB 36809, AG Nuernberg)
