On Wed, 2018-10-10 at 12:33 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 10:14:31AM -0500, Will Schmidt wrote:
> > Add some testcases for verification of vec_insert() codegen.
> > The char,float,int,short tests are broken out into -p8 and -p9
> > variants due to codegen variations between the platforms.
> >
> > Tested across assorted power linux platforms. OK for trunk?
>
> > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-insert-char-p8.c
>
> > +/* { dg-do compile { target { powerpc*-*-linux* && lp64 } } } */
>
> The usual questions wrt lp64 :-)
>
> > +/* { dg-require-effective-target powerpc_p8vector_ok } */
> > +/* { dg-options "-maltivec -O2" } */
>
> You say the same thing (and more) two lines later :-)
heh, I really meant it, i guess.
>
> > +/* { dg-skip-if "do not override -mcpu" { powerpc*-*-* } { "-mcpu=*" } {
> > "-mcpu=power8" } } */
> > +/* { dg-options "-maltivec -O2 -mcpu=power8" } */
>
> -maltivec is implied by -mcpu=power8 if you do nothing special.
>
> Similar for the other tests.
Yup, I'll clean those up. (this and the other submitted patches).
Thanks for the review. :-)
> For all the scan-assembler tests, did you verify these are exactly the
> instructions we want generated?
"want" may be a bit strong, but I do verified that is what we get now.
What I specifically do is compare what we do generate now with what we
end up generating after I attempt some early gimple-folding, and make
sure any changes are equivalent or better.
> Minus the nits, look great, okay for trunk. Thanks!
>
>
> Segher
>
