On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 11:31:02AM +0100, Christophe Lyon wrote: > On 17 February 2016 at 17:06, Kyrill Tkachov > <kyrylo.tkac...@foss.arm.com> wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I've thought about this check a bit more and I think we can compactly > > auto-generate checks > > for any aarch64 architecture extension support in the assembler. > > This is done in a similar way we autogenerate the arm_arch_*_ok checks for > > arm. > > > > So in this revision we autogenerate aarch64_asm_<ext>_ok checks for every > > architecture extension > > using some of the expect machinery. This should make this approach a bit > > more general to handle > > checks for any .arch_extension argument without much extra cost. > > > > This still assumes that the assembler supports the .arch_extension > > pseudo-op, the effective > > target check will fail if it doesn't. This is what we want for this > > testcase. > > > > Is this patch ok instead of > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg01052.html ? > > > Nice indeed. > > Regarding the doc, it's not accurate to say that the values of ext > are defined in aarch64-option-extensions.def, since that file is not > actually parsed by DJ. I mean there is no guarantee the two lists > will be kept in sync. > > In the new test itself, I think that > return [check_no_compiler_messages aarch64_lse_assembler object > should be: > return [check_no_compiler_messages aarch64_FUNC_assembler object > > for consistency although your patch is functional as-is.
Agreed. OK with that change. Thanks, James > > 2016-02-17 Kyrylo Tkachov <kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com> > > > > * lib/target-supports.exp: Define aarch64_asm_FUNC_ok checks > > for fp, simd, crypto, crc, lse. > > * doc/sourcebuild.texi (AArch64-specific attributes): Document the > > above. > > * gcc.target/aarch64/assembler_arch_1.c: Add aarch64_asm_lse_ok > > effective target check. >
