On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 10:44:36PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
> * gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-load-builtin_vec_xl-char.c: Fix
> typo in regular expression.
> * gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-load-builtin_vec_xl-double.c:
> Likewise.
> * gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-load-builtin_vec_xl-float.c:
> Likewise.
> * gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-load-builtin_vec_xl-int.c:
> Likewise.
> * gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-load-builtin_vec_xl-longlong.c:
> Likewise.
> * gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-load-builtin_vec_xl-short.c:
> Likewise.
Please don't break changelog lines unnecessarily.
This fixes typos, so the tests failed before, and now pass?
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-load-builtin_vec_xl-float.c
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-load-builtin_vec_xl-float.c
> @@ -28,4 +28,4 @@ BUILD_VAR_TEST( test4, vector float, signed long long,
> vector float);
> BUILD_VAR_TEST( test5, vector float, signed int, vector float);
> BUILD_CST_TEST( test6, vector float, 12, vector float);
>
> -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times
> {\mlxvw4x\M|\mlxvd2x\M|\mlxvx\M|\mp?lvx\M} 6 } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times
> {\mlxvw4x\M|\mlxvd2x\M|\mlxvx\M|\mp?lxv\M} 6 } } */
You can write
{\mlxvw4x\M|\mlxvd2x\M|\mp?lxvx?\M}
instead, or even
{\mp?lxv}
This would be a useful future cleanup: it makes these tests both more
readable and lower maintenance. What you test here is how many vector
loads there are, and the specific kind of vector load is immaterial in
this test.
This also make it clear you are now disallowing "lvx" here. Is that on
purpose? Is there any reason we would not allow it here? We do not
*expect* it of course, but depending on that means we will have more
patches to this testcase later. So maybe something like
{\mp?lxv|\mlvx\M}
Okay for trunk, thanks! Please think about making these tests more
robust :-)
Segher
