> -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Earnshaw (lists) [mailto:richard.earns...@arm.com] > Sent: 12 October 2017 14:21 > To: Tamar Christina; James Greenhalgh > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; nd; Marcus Shawcroft > Subject: Re: [PATCH][GCC][Testsuite][ARM][AArch64] Enable Dot Product > for generic tests for ARM and AArch64 [Patch (7/8)] > > On 06/10/17 13:45, Tamar Christina wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > this is a respin with the changes suggested. Note that this patch is no 8/8 > > in > the series. > > > > Regtested on arm-none-eabi, armeb-none-eabi, aarch64-none-elf and > > aarch64_be-none-elf with no issues found. > > > > Ok for trunk? > > > > gcc/testsuite > > 2017-10-06 Tamar Christina <tamar.christ...@arm.com> > > > > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-reduc-dot-s8a.c > > (dg-additional-options, dg-require-effective-target): Add +dotprod. > > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-reduc-dot-u8a.c > > (dg-additional-options, dg-require-effective-target): Add +dotprod. > > ________________________________________ > > From: Tamar Christina > > Sent: Monday, September 4, 2017 12:35:39 PM > > To: James Greenhalgh > > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; nd; Richard Earnshaw; Marcus Shawcroft > > Subject: RE: [PATCH][GCC][Testsuite][ARM][AArch64] Enable Dot Product > > for generic tests for ARM and AArch64 [Patch (7/8)] > > > >> I'm surprised that this worked! > >> > >> It looks like you unconditionally add the -march=armv8.2-a+dotprod > >> options, which should cause you to generate instructions which will > >> not execute on targets which don't support this instruction. As far > >> as I can see, this is an execute test, so that should cause undefined > >> instruction exceptions on an Armv8-A target at the very least. > > > > It's not, there is no dg-do specified, which means it defaults to "compile" > > This is a straight compilation tests that checks to see if the target > > can do the reduction. There may be a main, but it's never executed, > > which is why I don't have a hardware check against it. > > > > The unconditional armv8.2+dotprod is for this reason. It doesn't matter > what hardware. > > > >> > >> So, not OK in its current form. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> James > >> > >>> > >>> Ok for trunk? > >>> > >>> gcc/testsuite > >>> 2017-09-01 Tamar Christina <tamar.christ...@arm.com> > >>> > >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-reduc-dot-s8a.c > >>> (dg-additional-options, dg-require-effective-target): Add +dotprod. > >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-reduc-dot-u8a.c > >>> (dg-additional-options, dg-require-effective-target): Add +dotprod. > >>> > >>> -- > > > > iff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-reduc-dot-s8a.c > b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-reduc-dot-s8a.c > index > dc4f52019d5435edbbc811b73dee0f98ff44c1b1..acb6862f8274fb954f69bd45e8 > edeedcdca4cbf7 > 100644 > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-reduc-dot-s8a.c > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-reduc-dot-s8a.c > @@ -1,4 +1,7 @@ > /* { dg-require-effective-target vect_int } */ > +/* { dg-require-effective-target arm_v8_2a_dotprod_neon_hw { target { > aarch64*-*-* || arm*-*-* } } } */ > > Why do you need hardware with dot-product if these are compile-only > tests? (presumably that's what the _hw at the end of the require means).
James was right in that vect.exp overrides the default from compile to run for these tests, So they are execution tests. > > R.
