On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 11:39:37AM -0700, Carl Love wrote:
> > > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/builtins-1-be.c
> > > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/builtins-1-be.c
> > > @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> > > -/* { dg-do compile { target { powerpc64-*-* } } } */
> > > +/* { dg-do compile { target { powerpc*-*-* && be } } } */
> >
> > Does this (and other similar tests) work on 32-bit as well?
?
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/builtins-3-le.c
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
> > > +/* { dg-do compile { target powerpc64le-*-* } } */
> > > +/* { dg-require-effective-target powerpc_altivec_ok } */
> > > +/* { dg-options "-maltivec" } */
> >
> > This now should be powerpc*-*-* && le, possibly with && lp64 (but I
> > don't
> > think we care about 32-bit LE in any of the rest of the testsuite;
> > many
> > tests will fail there, so I wouldn't bother).
>
> Yea, I thought about doing powerpc*-*-* && le. But yea 32-bit isn't
> supported so I figured we didn't want to try and test on that so left
> it as powerpc64le-*-*.
Please change it.
> > With the be/le selectors available, does it help to split the tests
> > into
> > two still, or can things be better done with just one test, and be/le
> > selectors on each scan-assembler-times that needs one?
>
> The thing is the counts for probably 75% of the instructions is the
> same for be/le. Trying to maintain the be/le files and making sure we
> have all the builtin tests accounted for in each file is a pain in the
> ..... So, yea given we now have the le/be qualifier we should try and
> go with a single file. In the long run I think it is cleaner. Let me
> take a shot at combining the tests.
Thanks!
Segher
