Hi Aaron,
On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 05:58:59PM -0500, Aaron Sawdey via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Add a test for dejagnu to determine if execution of MMA instructions is
> supported in the test environment. Add an execution test to make sure
> that __builtin_cpu_supports("mma") is true if we can execute MMA
> instructions.
> +int
> +main (int argc, char *argv[])
> +{
> + int ret = 0;
> +#ifdef __BUILTIN_CPU_SUPPORTS__
> + if ( !__builtin_cpu_supports ("mma"))
> + {
> + printf ("Error: __builtin_cpu_supports says mma not supported, but
> ppc_mma_hw test passed.\n");
> + ret++;
> + }
> +#endif
> + return ret;
> +}
This will complain about spurious test output, I think? We usually put
#ifdef DEBUG around such prints, but here you could just remove it, make
it a comment? And maybe just do exit(1); or abort(); or whatever.
> + __vector_quad acc0;
> + v4sf_t result[4];
> + result[0][0] = 1.0;
> + __builtin_mma_xxsetaccz (&acc0);
> + __builtin_mma_disassemble_acc (result, &acc0);
> + if ( result[0][0] != 0.0 )
> + return 1;
> + return 0;
No spaces inside ( ) please, and indent that first return statement? We
don't care about the testcases themselves (more styles tests ever so
slightly more, even ;-) ), but this isn't a testcase :-) Not that it is
important here, but hey.
> @@ -7865,6 +7891,7 @@ proc is-effective-target-keyword { arg } {
> "named_sections" { return 1 }
> "gc_sections" { return 1 }
> "cxa_atexit" { return 1 }
> + "ppc_mma_hw" { return 1 }
> default { return 0 }
> }
Hrm, do we want it to be named ppc_mma_hw? Why not mma_hw just like
most other things?
And keep all rs6000 keywords together please (also power10_hw).
(I also wonder why rs6000 does things differently here, it's the only
arch that uses this apparently, hrm).
Okay for trunk (and backport to 10) modulo those nits. Thanks!
Segher
