Hi!
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 07:53:21PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
> --- gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp (revision 249606)
> +++ gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp (working copy)
> @@ -1930,6 +1930,37 @@ proc check_effective_target_powerpc64_no
> } {-O2}]
> }
>
> +# Return 1 if the target supports the __builtin_cpu_supports built-in,
> +# including having a new enough library to support the test. Cache the
> result.
> +# Require at least a power7 to run on.
> +
> +proc check_ppc_cpu_supports_hw_available { } {
This probably shouldn't have "ppc" in the name? Or "hw"?
> + return [check_cached_effective_target ppc_cpu_supports_hw_available {
> + # Some simulators are known to not support VSX/power8 instructions.
> + # For now, disable on Darwin
> + if { [istarget powerpc-*-eabi]
> + || [istarget powerpc*-*-eabispe]
> + || [istarget *-*-darwin*]} {
> + expr 0
> + } else {
> + set options "-mvsx"
> + check_runtime_nocache ppc_cpu_supports_hw_available {
> + int main()
> + {
> + #ifdef __MACH__
> + asm volatile ("xxlor vs0,vs0,vs0");
> + #else
> + asm volatile ("xxlor 0,0,0");
> + #endif
> + if (!__builtin_cpu_supports ("vsx"))
> + return 1;
> + return 0;
> + }
> + } $options
> + }
> + }]
> +}
As Peter said, I'd rather test for "ppc32", so this works anywhere.
That would give
proc check_cpu_supports_available { } {
if { [istarget powerpc*-*-*] } {
return [check_runtime cpu_supports_available {
int main() { return !__builtin_cpu_supports ("ppc32"); }
}]
}
return 0
}
(and other archs can add their stuff then).
Why did you use check_runtime_nocache btw? Is that just copy-paste?
Segher
