On 3/25/22 4:08 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 02:51:38PM -0500, Peter Bergner wrote: >> This patch updates the POWER testsuite test cases using -mcpu= and -mtune= >> to use the preferred -mdejagnu-cpu= and -mdejagnu-tune= options. This also >> obviates the need for the dg-skip-if directive, since the user cannot >> override the -mcpu= value being used to compile the test case. > > So this is all testcases that say "do not override -mcpu"?
Not all of them, but most of them, yes. > It seems likely many of these tests should move to g++.target/powerpc . Probably, that can be a follow on patch. Maybe a good first patch for Surya. > Those that should not should likely not use -mcpu= in the first place > (instead, those tests should use has_arch_pwrN). If the test cases explicitly added -mcpu=, I'm guessing they need them to test whatever the test case is checking for. If we remove the -mcpu= and reply on dg-require has_arch_pwrN or whatever, then the test case would only run whenever the default flags match that, right? So it would seem we'd get less test coverage than before. >> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/int_128bit-runnable.c >> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/test_mffsl.c > > I missed these two in reviewing when the -mcpu= was introduced, oops. It's WAY too easy to miss those, since -mcpu= is such a common option that we see and use everyday, we almost expect to see it, so it doesn't look out of place or wrong. > Okay for trunk. Also okay for backports if you want / if you think it > useful. Thanks! Thanks, commit pushed. I had not thought about backports, but if it helps stabilize our test results there, it can't hurt. I'll have a look and see if the tests even exist there or not. Peter
