On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 04:57:43PM +0800, HAO CHEN GUI wrote:
> b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c
> index b4e13af4dc6..90527734ceb 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c
> +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c
> @@ -12159,6 +12159,11 @@ rs6000_gimple_fold_builtin (gimple_stmt_iterator
> *gsi)
> return true;
> /* flavors of vec_min. */
> case VSX_BUILTIN_XVMINDP:
> + case ALTIVEC_BUILTIN_VMINFP:
> + if (!flag_finite_math_only || flag_signed_zeros)
> + return false;
> + /* Fall through to MIN_EXPR. */
> + gcc_fallthrough ();
> case P8V_BUILTIN_VMINSD:
> case P8V_BUILTIN_VMINUD:
> case ALTIVEC_BUILTIN_VMINSB:
"Fall though to code for MIN_EXPR"? It suggests it is a label, as
written now. Or don't have this comment at all, maybe?
> +/* { dg-do compile { target { powerpc*-*-* } } } */
Leave out the target clause? Testcases in gcc.target/powerpc/ are not
run when this is not satisfied anyway, testing it twice is just more
noise.
Segher
