Hi Will,
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 09:19:23AM -0500, Will Schmidt wrote:
> Add some Testcase coverage for the vector permute intrinsics.
>
> Tested across power platforms. OK for trunk?
> * gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-perm-char.c: New.
> * gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-perm-double.c: New.
> * gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-perm-float.c: New.
> * gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-perm-int.c: New.
> * gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-perm-longlong.c: New.
> * gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-perm-pixel.c: New.
> * gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-perm-short.c: New.
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-perm-double.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
> +/* Verify that overloaded built-ins for vec_perm with
> + double inputs produce the right results. */
That suggests it is a run test, but it's not. s/results/code/ maybe?
(Same in other tests).
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-perm-float.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
> +/* Verify that overloaded built-ins for vec_perm with float
> + inputs produce the right results. */
> +
> +/* { dg-do compile } */
> +/* { dg-require-effective-target powerpc_vsx_ok } */
> +/* { dg-options "-maltivec -O2" } */
vsx vs. altivec again. You probably just need to add a comment what this
is about, or you can use -mvsx instead.
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..9f5c786
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-perm-pixel.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
> +/* Verify that overloaded built-ins for vec_perm with pixel
> + inputs produce the right results. */
> +
> +/* { dg-do compile } */
> +/* { dg-require-effective-target powerpc_vsx_ok } */
> +/* { dg-options "-mvsx -O2" } */
Why vsx for pixel? It's an altivec thing.
Segher
