[PATCH, rs6000] Fix AIX expected builtin instruction counts

2018-06-14 Thread Carl Love
GCC Maintainers: The following patch fixes the instruction count tests for various builtin testcases that fail on AIX. The expected instruction counts differ in a few cases between Linux and AIX. An AIX instruction target was added to the instruction count tests that differ on AIX and Linux. Add

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Fix AIX expected builtin instruction counts

2018-06-15 Thread Segher Boessenkool
Hi! On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 08:12:31AM -0700, Carl Love wrote: > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/altivec-7.c > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/altivec-7.c > @@ -85,17 +85,22 @@ int main () > /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "vpkpx" 2 } } */ > /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-time

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Fix AIX expected builtin instruction counts

2018-06-18 Thread Carl Love
Segher: Per our discussions, the previous patch had issues with the target !powerpc*-*-aix* not working correctly and thus the instruction count test was not being done. I have addressed those issues and verified by inspecting the gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.log file to make sure the test was actually

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Fix AIX expected builtin instruction counts

2018-06-19 Thread Segher Boessenkool
Hi Carl, On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 01:52:15PM -0700, Carl Love wrote: > Per our discussions, the previous patch had issues with the target > !powerpc*-*-aix* not working correctly and thus the instruction count > test was not being done. I have addressed those issues and verified by > inspecting th

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Fix AIX expected builtin instruction counts

2018-06-20 Thread Carl Love
Segher: I believe I have addressed all of your concerns with the patch. I have retested it and it looks good. Please let me know if the patch looks OK for GCC mainline.   Carl Love >From 8d354f93c5ddb5161b

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Fix AIX expected builtin instruction counts

2018-06-21 Thread Segher Boessenkool
Hi Carl, On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 05:09:00PM -0700, Carl Love wrote: > I believe I have addressed all of your concerns with the patch. > > I have retested it and it looks good. It looks good indeed. Please commit, thanks! I noticed one more thing (follow-up patch?) > /* { dg-final { scan-asse