Hi Alexandre,
on 2023/4/7 09:48, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Apr 6, 2023, "Kewen.Lin" <li...@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> The reason why personally I preferred to fix it with xfail is that:
>
> Got it. I'm convinced, and I agree.
>
> I tried an xfail in the initial dg-do, but that is no good for a compile
> error, so I went for a dg-bogus xfail. I hope that will still have the
> intended effect when __ibm128 is defined when it currently isn't.
>
Thanks for looking into it.
> There is a dg-skip-if in this test on the trunk, covering some targets,
> that IIRC are longdouble64, so maybe that's related and I could have
> dropped them, but I wasn't sure, so I left them alone.
I think it's due to that -mfloat128 isn't fully supported on them, so
yeah, just leave them alone.
>
> Regstrapped on ppc64-linux-gnu (pass), also tested on ppc64-vx7r2/gcc-12
> (xfail). Ok to install?
>
>
> [PR99708] [rs6000] don't expect __ibm128 with 64-bit long double
>
> When long double is 64-bit wide, as on vxworks, the rs6000 backend
> defines neither the __ibm128 type nor the __SIZEOF_IBM128__ macro, but
> pr99708.c expected both to be always defined. Adjust the test to
> match the implementation.
>
>
> for gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
>
> * gcc.target/powerpc/pr99708.c: Accept lack of
> __SIZEOF_IBM128__ when long double is 64-bit wide.
> ---
> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr99708.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr99708.c
> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr99708.c
> index 02b40ebc40d3d..66a5f88479330 100644
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr99708.c
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr99708.c
> @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@
> int main (void)
> {
> if (__SIZEOF_FLOAT128__ != sizeof (__float128)
> - || __SIZEOF_IBM128__ != sizeof (__ibm128))
> + || __SIZEOF_IBM128__ != sizeof (__ibm128)) /* { dg-bogus "undeclared"
> "" { xfail longdouble64 } } */
> abort ();
>
This new version causes unresolved record on my side, it's due to the
compilation failed to produce executable.
=== gcc Summary for unix/-m64 ===
# of expected passes 1
# of expected failures 1
# of unresolved testcases 1
So I think we need to make the file be compiled well, how about something like:
------
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr99708.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr99708.c
index 02b40ebc40d..c6aa0511b89 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr99708.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr99708.c
@@ -14,9 +14,17 @@
int main (void)
{
if (__SIZEOF_FLOAT128__ != sizeof (__float128)
- || __SIZEOF_IBM128__ != sizeof (__ibm128))
+ /* FIXME: Once type __ibm128 gets supported with long-double-64,
+ we shouldn't need this conditional #ifdef and xfail. */
+#ifdef __SIZEOF_IBM128__
+ || __SIZEOF_IBM128__ != sizeof (__ibm128)
+#else
+ || 1
+#endif
+ )
abort ();
return 0;
}
+/* { dg-xfail-run-if "unsupported type __ibm128 with long-double-64" {
longdouble64 } } */
------
? OK if it looks reasonable to you and the testing goes well. Thanks!
BR,
Kewen
