On 25 November 2016 at 15:53, Christophe Lyon <christophe.l...@linaro.org> wrote: > Hi Tamar, > > On 24 November 2016 at 12:45, Tamar Christina <tamar.christ...@arm.com> wrote: >> Hi Christoph, >> >> I have combined most of the tests in p64_p128 except for the >> vreinterpret_p128 and vreinterpret_p64 ones because I felt the number >> of code that would be have to be added to p64_p128 vs having them in those >> files isn't worth it. Since a lot of the test setup would have to be copied. >> > > A few comments about this new version: > * arm-neon-ref.h: why do you create CHECK_RESULTS_NAMED_NO_FP16_NO_POLY64? > Can't you just add calls to CHECK_CRYPTO in the existing > CHECK_RESULTS_NAMED_NO_FP16? > > * p64_p128: > From what I can see ARM and AArch64 differ on the vceq variants > available with poly64. > For ARM, arm_neon.h contains: uint64x1_t vceq_p64 (poly64x1_t __a, > poly64x1_t __b) > For AArch64, I can't see vceq_p64 in arm_neon.h? ... Actually I've just > noticed > the other you submitted while I was writing this, where you add vceq_p64 for > aarch64, but it still returns uint64_t. > Why do you change the vceq_64 test to return poly64_t instead of uint64_t? > > Why do you add #ifdef __aarch64 before vldX_p64 tests and until vsli_p64? > > The comment /* vget_lane_p64 tests. */ is wrong before VLDX_LANE tests > > You need to protect the new vmov, vget_high and vget_lane tests with > #ifdef __aarch64__. >
Actually, vget_high_p64 exists on arm, so no need for the #fidef for it. > Christophe > >> Kind regards, >> Tamar >> ________________________________________ >> From: Tamar Christina >> Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2016 11:58:46 AM >> To: Christophe Lyon >> Cc: GCC Patches; christophe.l...@st.com; Marcus Shawcroft; Richard Earnshaw; >> James Greenhalgh; Kyrylo Tkachov; nd >> Subject: RE: [AArch64][ARM][GCC][PATCHv2 3/3] Add tests for missing Poly64_t >> intrinsics to GCC >> >> Hi Christophe, >> >> Thanks for the review! >> >>> >>> A while ago I added p64_p128.c, to contain all the poly64/128 tests except >>> for >>> vreinterpret. >>> Why do you need to create p64.c ? >> >> I originally created it because I had a much smaller set of intrinsics that >> I wanted to >> add initially, this grew and It hadn't occurred to me that I can use the >> existing file now. >> >> Another reason was the effective-target arm_crypto_ok as you mentioned below. >> >>> >>> Similarly, adding tests for vcreate_p64 etc... in p64.c or p64_p128.c might >>> be >>> easier to maintain than adding them to vcreate.c etc with several #ifdef >>> conditions. >> >> Fair enough, I'll move them to p64_p128.c. >> >>> For vdup-vmod.c, why do you add the "&& defined(__aarch64__)" >>> condition? These intrinsics are defined in arm/arm_neon.h, right? >>> They are tested in p64_p128.c >> >> I should have looked for them, they weren't being tested before so I had >> Mistakenly assumed that they weren't available. Now I realize I just need >> To add the proper test option to the file to enable crypto. I'll update this >> as well. >> >>> Looking at your patch, it seems some tests are currently missing for arm: >>> vget_high_p64. I'm not sure why I missed it when I removed neont- >>> testgen... >> >> I'll adjust the test conditions so they run for ARM as well. >> >>> >>> Regarding vreinterpret_p128.c, doesn't the existing effective-target >>> arm_crypto_ok prevent the tests from running on aarch64? >> >> Yes they do, I was comparing the output against a clean version and hasn't >> noticed >> That they weren't running. Thanks! >> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Christophe
