On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 9:09 AM, Will Schmidt <will_schm...@vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > On Sat, 2017-05-13 at 18:03 -0700, David Edelsohn wrote: >> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 3:09 PM, Segher Boessenkool >> <seg...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote: >> > On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 02:36:26PM -0500, Will Schmidt wrote: >> >> On Thu, 2017-05-11 at 14:15 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >> >> > Hi! >> >> > >> >> > On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 10:53:33AM -0500, Will Schmidt wrote: >> >> > > Add handling for early expansion of vector locical operations in >> >> > > gimple. >> >> > > Specifically: vec_and, vec_andc, vec_or, vec_xor, vec_orc, vec_nand. >> >> > >> >> > You also handle nor (except in the changelog). But what about eqv? >> >> >> >> Right, in my excitement I lost my 'vec_nor', that one should be >> >> mentioned as well. >> >> >> >> vec_eqv() I have as a later patch in my series, it will be showing up >> >> once this first bunch are in. >> > >> > Ah cool -- fine with the changelog fix then. Thanks! >> >> Will, >> >> All of the testcases are failing on AIX. Most are direct fails, but >> some are complaining about implicit declaration of a function. >> >> I thought that we had determined the correct gcc testsuite target >> selectors. Something is not correct with the new tests. >> >> The errors about undeclared function are: >> >> FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-div-float.c (test for excess errors) >> >> Excess errors: >> >> /nasfarm/edelsohn/src/src/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-div-float.c: >> >> 13:10: warning: implicit declaration of function 'vec_div'; did you >> mean 'vec_dss'? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration] >> /nasfarm/edelsohn/src/src/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-div-float.c: >> 13:3: error: AltiVec argument passed to unprototyped function >> >> and >> >> FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-div-floatdouble.c (test for excess errors) >> >> Excess errors: >> >> /nasfarm/edelsohn/src/src/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-div-floatdouble.c:10:8: >> error: expected '=', ',', ';', 'asm' or '__attribute__' before >> 'double' >> >> Would you please look into this and fix it? > > Yes. > > I've started a checkout on gcc119. Is that the right environment I > should poke around in, or is there a preferred or recommended > alternative?
That is the right environment, but it will take a long time. You should be able to reason about it directly by looking at the failing line. Thanks, David
