On Wed, 2015-09-16 at 19:16 +0100, Alan Lawrence wrote: > On 16/09/15 17:19, Bill Schmidt wrote: > > On Wed, 2015-09-16 at 16:29 +0100, Alan Lawrence wrote: > >> > >> I proposed a patch to migrate PPC off the old patterns, but have forgotten > >> to > >> ping it recently - last at > >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg01024.html ... (ping?!) > >> > > > > Hi Alan, > > > > Thanks for this patch. I see that you tested it on gcc110, which is a > > big-endian platform. I think the pattern for V4SF might have an endian > > problem on little-endian, but I'm not positive just eyeballing it. (I > > think that the select of element 3 will address the wrong end of the > > vector for LE.) Can you please try the patch on gcc112 as well to set > > my mind at ease? > > > > Thanks, > > Bill > > > >> --Alan > >> > > > > > > I think you are right....I'm just retesting without the patch to rule out > other > test setup problems etc., but I see more tests failing on gcc112 than I > expect > (comparing against e.g. > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2015-09/msg01479.html). > > What's the best way to determine endianness - is it BYTES_BIG_ENDIAN, would > that > be true on gcc110 but false on gcc112?
Yes, that's the correct test, thanks! Bill > > Cheers, Alan >
