On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 12:36 PM Carl Love <c...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> David:
>
> On Wed, 2020-10-28 at 20:43 -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> > Better, but please use
> >
> > /* { dg-require-effective-target int128 } */
> >
> > not "target int128" in the selector. Segher and I both agree that
> > it's cleaner and more readable. The selector (the target part on the
> > dg-do line) should not be used for this type of requirement.
>
> OK, redid the test case. It now reads:
>
> +/* { dg-do compile } */
> +/* { dg-require-effective-target int128 } */
> +/
> * { dg-require-effective-target power10_hw } */
> +/* { dg-options "-
> mdejagnu-cpu=power10 -O2" } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times
> "\mbcdadd\M" 7 } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "\mbcdsub\M"
> 18 } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "\mbcds\M" 2 } } */
> +/* {
> dg-final { scan-assembler-times "\mdenbcdq\M" 1 } } */
> +
>
> Reran the regresion, no new failures were reported.
>
> Please let me know if that looks OK. Thanks.
Hi, Carl
The revised dg-require for the testcases look fine to me.
Thanks for implementing this next set of builtins. The patch looks
good to me, modulo any comments from Segher.
20+ more builtins for Bill's rewrite. You owe him a beer.
Thanks, David
