Hi Sandra,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sandra Loosemore <san...@codesourcery.com>
> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 10:35 PM
> To: Tamar Christina <tamar.christ...@arm.com>; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: nd <n...@arm.com>; jos...@codesourcery.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 9/16][docs] Add some missing test directive
> documentaion.
>
> On 9/25/20 8:29 AM, Tamar Christina wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > This adds some documentation for some test directives that are missing.
> >
> > Bootstrapped Regtested on aarch64-none-linux-gnu and no issues.
> >
> > Ok for master?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Tamar
> >
> > gcc/ChangeLog:
> >
> > * doc/sourcebuild.texi (vect_complex_rot_<type>,
> > arm_v8_3a_complex_neon_ok, arm_v8_3a_complex_neon_hw):
> New.
> >
> > diff --git a/gcc/doc/sourcebuild.texi b/gcc/doc/sourcebuild.texi index
> >
> 65b2e552b74becdbc5474ba5ac387a4a0296e341..3abd8f631cb0234076641e399
> f6f
> > 00768b38ebee 100644
> > --- a/gcc/doc/sourcebuild.texi
> > +++ b/gcc/doc/sourcebuild.texi
> > @@ -1671,6 +1671,10 @@ Target supports a vector dot-product of
> @code{signed short}.
> > @item vect_udot_hi
> > Target supports a vector dot-product of @code{unsigned short}.
> >
> > +@item vect_complex_rot_@var{n}
> > +Target supports a vector complex addition and complex fma of mode
> @var{N}.
> > +Possible values of @var{n} are @code{hf}, @code{sf}, @code{df}.
> > +
>
> Well, "fma" isn't a word. But looking at target-supports.exp, this
> description
> doesn't match what's in the source code anyway; there it says this is for
> "vector complex addition with rotate", not fused multiply-add.
>
I don't currently differentiate between the operations (as in supporting one
requires supporting the other), which I probably should..
But you're right I'll make this match what's on the tin 😊
Regards,
Tamar
>
> > +@item arm_v8_3a_complex_neon_hw
> > +ARM target supports executing complex arithmetic instructions from
> ARMv8.3-A.
> > +Some multilibs may be incompatible with these options.
> > +Implies arm_v8_3a_complex_neon_ok.
> > +
>
> There should be @code markup on arm_v8_3a_complex_neon_ok at the
> end. I noticed more existing instances of missing @code markup in similar
> language for other entries in this table; can you fix those at the same time,
> or
> in a separate patch? I consider fixing markup issues like that to be obvious
> (especially in internal documentation rather than the GCC user manual), so
> you can just check in fixes like that without waiting for review.
>
> -Sandra
