On 7 June 2016 at 11:42, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
But this makes the tests fails, rather than be unsupported, right?
> Jakub
