On 12/18/19 8:15 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> +/* { dg-do compile { target { powerpc*-*-* } } } */
>> +/* { dg-options "-w -O2 -mdejagnu-cpu=power9" } */
>
> You don't need that target clause in gcc.target/powerpc (and dg-do compile
> is the default, but having it explicit is also fine of cour
(Whoops, I missed replying t this one. Sorry.)
On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 12:27:11PM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On 12/4/19 5:03 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 03:53:30PM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
> >> Right. I'll come up with a patch and hopefully Iain and David can
On Mon, Dec 09, 2019 at 02:16:51PM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
> I'm not sure that's necessary. DFP enablement isn't triggered by
> assembler support. Just the gcc/configure fragment (ignoring manually
> using --enable-decimal-float):
>
> case $target in
> powerpc*-*-linux* | i?86*-*-linux
Peter Bergner wrote:
On 12/10/19 12:27 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
Ok, how about the patch below? If Iain and David could test this on
Darwin
and AIX respectively, that would be great. I'm currently testing this on
powerpc64le-linux, with and without --disable-decimal-float.
So my --enable-
On 12/10/19 12:27 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> Ok, how about the patch below? If Iain and David could test this on Darwin
> and AIX respectively, that would be great. I'm currently testing this on
> powerpc64le-linux, with and without --disable-decimal-float.
So my --enable-decimal-float builds sh
On 12/4/19 5:03 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 03:53:30PM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
>> Right. I'll come up with a patch and hopefully Iain and David can test
>> on Darwin and AIX and I can test on Linux with --enable-decimal-float
>> and --disable-decimal-float. That sh
On 12/6/19 5:12 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 08:44:57AM +, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>> .. or I can just force a false return from effective_target_dfp as we
>> do for other cases where assembler support does not imply system
>> support.
>
> That's what I would do, yes.
On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 08:44:57AM +, Iain Sandoe wrote:
> .. or I can just force a false return from effective_target_dfp as we
> do for other cases where assembler support does not imply system
> support.
That's what I would do, yes.
Segher
On 12/5/19 2:44 AM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
> Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 03:53:30PM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
>>> Sure, I can add a test in gcc.target/powerpc/ that uses both a builtin
>>> and an overloaded builtin to make sure we don't ICE when DFP is disabled.
>>
>> Great,
Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 03:53:30PM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
>> On 12/4/19 2:50 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>> It would be nice to keep *some* dfp test(s) to make sure we don't ICE.
>>> If we disabled all such tests already, like with this patch, we wouldn't
>>> h
On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 03:53:30PM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On 12/4/19 2:50 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > It would be nice to keep *some* dfp test(s) to make sure we don't ICE.
> > If we disabled all such tests already, like with this patch, we wouldn't
> > have ICEd or seen this problem.
On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 03:40:25PM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On 12/4/19 2:47 PM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
> > Peter Bergner wrote:
> >>
> >> Why isn't just testing check_effective_target_dfp enough to disable the
> >> tests on Darwin, --disable-decimal-float, etc.?
> >
> > … It should be a better s
On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 08:47:49PM +, Iain Sandoe wrote:
> Peter Bergner wrote:
> >On 12/4/19 1:16 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >>This isn't run from powerpc.exp, so it needs to still do that first check.
> >>And it's up to the Darwin maintainers whether they want that second part
> >>(ther
On 12/4/19 2:50 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> It would be nice to keep *some* dfp test(s) to make sure we don't ICE.
> If we disabled all such tests already, like with this patch, we wouldn't
> have ICEd or seen this problem. That can be a separate test of course
> (and could be outside gcc.targ
On 12/4/19 2:47 PM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
> Peter Bergner wrote:
>>
>> Why isn't just testing check_effective_target_dfp enough to disable the
>> tests on Darwin, --disable-decimal-float, etc.?
>
> … It should be a better solution - I will confirm this.
Thanks for checking. The nice thing about th
On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 01:56:45PM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On 12/4/19 1:16 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > Why do you need/want the check_effective_target_dfp test? If for example
> > this is to prevent ICEs, that is no good, that is *hiding* problems.
> >
> > I suspect it is to stop the
Peter Bergner wrote:
On 12/4/19 1:16 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
This isn't run from powerpc.exp, so it needs to still do that first check.
And it's up to the Darwin maintainers whether they want that second part
(there are many more tests and testsuites that disable *-darwin* while
that i
On 12/4/19 1:16 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> For future patches: it is much easier to review if you make the big,
> mechanical move a separate (earlier) patch.
Will do.
>> I have also
>> included a small patch to disable running the powerpc/dfp/ tests even for
>> powerpc*-linux when --disab
Hi!
[ This email was refused by the ML, too big, but I'll keep all non-
mechanical parts of the patch in this reply, for the archives. ]
On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 10:01:05AM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
> The following patch fixes the last bug in PR92661, which is an ICE while
> defining a builtin t
19 matches
Mail list logo
