On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 10:36:25AM +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 11:23:01AM +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> >> > --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr71259.c.jj 2016-06-03
> >> > 17:05:37.693475438 +0200
> >> > +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr71259.c 2016-06-03 17:05:32.418544731
> >> > +0200
> >> > @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
> >> > +/* PR tree-optimization/71259 */
> >> > +/* { dg-do run } */
> >> > +/* { dg-options "-O3" } */
> >
> > Would changing this from dg-options to dg-additional-options help for the
> > ARM issues?
> > check_vect () is the standard way for testing for HW vectorization support
> > and hundreds of tests use it.
>
>
> all tests in gcc.dg/vect have some form of dg-require-effective-target
No, at least 170+ tests don't.
> - so I think this test should just have dg-require-effective-target
> "vect_int" .
No, why? This test doesn't test whether the function has been vectorized.
It only tests whether it works.
And the check_vect () is supposed to exit early if some extra flags were
passed by vect.exp (like e.g. on i?86-linux -msse2) and the HW doesn't
support those.
Jakub
