Richard Sandiford <richard.sandif...@arm.com> writes:
> Andrea Corallo via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
>> diff --git
>> a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/advsimd-intrinsics/vcopy_lane_bf16_indices_1.c
>> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/advsimd-intrinsics/vcopy_lane_bf16_indices_1.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 00000000000..9cbb5ea8110
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++
>> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/advsimd-intrinsics/vcopy_lane_bf16_indices_1.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
>> +#include <arm_neon.h>
>> +
>> +/* { dg-do compile { target { aarch64*-*-* } } } */
>> +/* { dg-skip-if "" { *-*-* } { "-fno-fat-lto-objects" } } */
>> +/* { dg-require-effective-target arm_v8_2a_bf16_neon_ok { target { arm*-*-*
>> } } } */
>> +/* { dg-add-options arm_v8_2a_bf16_neon } */
>
> Realise this probably comes from elsewhere, but why is the
> dg-require-effective-target dependent on arm*-*-*? It and the
> dg-add-options should usually be used as a pair, with the same
> target guards.
>
> In particular:
>
> proc add_options_for_arm_v8_2a_bf16_neon { flags } {
> if { ! [check_effective_target_arm_v8_2a_bf16_neon_ok] } {
> return "$flags"
> }
> global et_arm_v8_2a_bf16_neon_flags
> return "$flags $et_arm_v8_2a_bf16_neon_flags"
> }
>
> will do nothing when arm_v8_2a_bf16_neon_ok is false, and so in that
> case I'd expect the testcase to be compiled without +bf16. We'd then
> get an error about using a bf16 function without the required target
> feature.
>
> Given that that hasn't been causing people problems in practice,
> I assume most people testing on AArch64 use RUNTESTFLAGS that support
> arm_v8_2a_bf16_neon_ok (as hoped). But in principle it could be
> false for AArch64 too. So I think we should just remove the
> “{ target arm*-*-* } ”.
>
> Same for the other tests.
>
> OK with that change if it works (for trunk and for whichever
> branches need it).
>
> Thanks,
> Richard
Hi Richard,
I've applied the suggestions and have now installed it into master as
8eb8dcac6ed. I'll follow up with the backports.
Thanks!
Andrea
