On Fri, 24 Jun 2016, Uros Bizjak wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> Once more with feeling... I've revised my v2 patch to rename the > >> functions to __builtin_<fn>q rather than __builtin_<fn>f128 to avoid > >> the collision with Joseph's work. I've also corrected the formatting > >> problems that Segher noted with my previous attempt. > >> > >> Bootstrapped and tested on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu with > >> no regressions. Is this ok for trunk, and eventually for 6.2? > > > > I'd like to point out that there are several tests in > > gcc.dg/torture/*float128*.c that can be enabled for powerpc. > > .. and also in gcc.dg/*float128*.c. > > Maybe we should add a check for float128 effective target in > lib/target-supports.exp that would list all __float128 capable > targets?
There's such an effective target, for _Float128, in my _FloatN / _FloatNx patch. Note that some of the __float128 tests are not appropriate for powerpc because they are specific to architectures with after-rounding tininess detection. Also note that powerpc needs extra options to enable float128 / has limitations on what hardware is supported, so optimal enabling of such tests requires something like dg-add-options float128. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
