On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 12:36:28PM -0500, Peter Bergner wrote: > On 8/11/20 11:35 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > Hi Alan, > > > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 06:38:53PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote: > >> This fixes a fail when power10 isn't supported by binutils, and > >> ensures the test isn't run without power10 hardware or simulation on > >> the off chance that power10 insns are emitted in the future for this > >> testcase. > > > > The testcases said it wanted power8, so why did it fail? GCC shouldn't > > use anything that requires p10 support in binutils then, or what do I > > miss here? > > It failed with an assembler error because one of the functions in the > test uses an attribute target power10 and GCC emits a ".machine power10" > assembler directive in case we do generate a power10 instruction(s). > The old binutils Bill used doesn't know about power10, so boom. > That is what requires the dg-require-effective-target power10_ok.
Ah, okay. > Now given the power10 function is so small (just a call to a p8 > function), the chance we'll generate a p10 instruction is low (zero?), > so we could just keep the dg-do run as is (ie, always run), but > might that change one day? On a non-p10 it will just use the generated non-p10 code, and that will just work, now and for forever (yeah right :-) ) Either always running or what this patch does will work. But please add comments what the test case wants to test, and for the tricky bits. Segher
