On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 02:25:58PM -0500, will schmidt wrote: > I'd throw the ternary term in there, easier to search for later. > s/?: operations/ternary (?:) operations /
Thanks. > So, presumably the float128-minmax-2.c test adds/replaces the power10 > code gen tests that were removed or disabled from float128-minmax.c. Yes. > Probably fine.. It's good to exercise the pragma target stuff, thoguh > I wonder if it would be better to just specify -mcpu=power9 in the > options since we are already specifying (redundant?) -mpower9-vector. > > I see similar changes in a later patch, probably OK there since those > tests do not appear to be specifying -mcpu=foo options that are already > pointed at power9 features... I think we really want a better solution than #pragma, since some systems (AIX if memory serves) might not support #pragma to change code generation models, because they don't have the assembler/linker support for it. Basically for code generation tests, I see the following cases: 1) Test code targetting precisley power8 (or power9, power10), etc. Hopefully these are rare. 2) Test code targetting at least power8. But as these tests show, that a lot of the code won't generate the appropriate instructions on power10. This is what we have now. It relies on undocumented switches like -mpower9-vector to add the necessary support. 3) Test code targetting at least power8 but go to power9 at the maximum. -- Michael Meissner, IBM IBM, M/S 2506R, 550 King Street, Littleton, MA 01460-6245, USA email: meiss...@linux.ibm.com, phone: +1 (978) 899-4797
