Hi, Is it OK to backport r266665 to gcc8 (Ensure dotproduct is only enabled on armv8 neon) ? I've noticed unnecessary failure of gcc.target/arm/simd/vdot-compile.c after I upgraded to recent binutils.
Thanks, Christophe
[ARM] Ensure dotproduct is only enabled on armv8 neon 2019-11-14 Christophe Lyon <christophe.l...@linaro.org> Backport r266665 from mainline. gcc/ 2018-11-30 Sam Tebbs <sam.te...@arm.com> * config/arm/arm.h (TARGET_DOTPROD): Add TARGET_VFP5 constraint. gcc/testsuite/ 2018-11-30 Sam Tebbs <sam.te...@arm.com> * gcc.target/arm/neon-dotprod-restriction.c: New file. * lib/target-supports.exp (check_effective_target_arm_v8_2a_dotprod_neon_ok_nocache): Include stdint.h.
diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/arm.h b/gcc/config/arm/arm.h index b12ae38..febd6b0 100644 --- a/gcc/config/arm/arm.h +++ b/gcc/config/arm/arm.h @@ -211,7 +211,7 @@ extern tree arm_fp16_type_node; #define TARGET_NEON_RDMA (TARGET_NEON && arm_arch8_1) /* Supports the Dot Product AdvSIMD extensions. */ -#define TARGET_DOTPROD (TARGET_NEON \ +#define TARGET_DOTPROD (TARGET_NEON && TARGET_VFP5 \ && bitmap_bit_p (arm_active_target.isa, \ isa_bit_dotprod) \ && arm_arch8_2) diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp index e6b84041..857884d 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp +++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp @@ -4510,6 +4510,7 @@ proc check_effective_target_arm_v8_2a_dotprod_neon_ok_nocache { } { foreach flags {"" "-mfloat-abi=softfp -mfpu=neon-fp-armv8" "-mfloat-abi=hard -mfpu=neon-fp-armv8"} { if { [check_no_compiler_messages_nocache \ arm_v8_2a_dotprod_neon_ok object { + #include <stdint.h> #if !defined (__ARM_FEATURE_DOTPROD) #error "__ARM_FEATURE_DOTPROD not defined" #endif