>> Presumably the target selector in the dg-do ensures we only build/run >> these on the appropriate targets now and we don't need explicitly -march >> arguments? Yes.
>> Assuming that's correct, this is fine for the trunk. Thanks. juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai From: Jeff Law Date: 2023-06-20 07:13 To: Juzhe-Zhong; gcc-patches CC: kito.cheng; palmer; rdapp.gcc Subject: Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Fix fails of testcases On 6/19/23 17:04, Juzhe-Zhong wrote: > FAIL: gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls-vlmax/vec_extract-run.c -std=c99 -O3 > -ftree-vectorize --param riscv-autovec-preference=fixed-vlmax (test for > excess errors) > Excess errors: > xgcc: fatal error: Cannot find suitable multilib set for > '-march=rv64imafdcv_zicsr_zifencei_zve32f_zve32x_zve64d_zve64f_zve64x_zvl128b_zvl32b_zvl64b'/'-mabi=lp64d' > compilation terminated. > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > > * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls-vlmax/vec_extract-run.c: Fix fail. > * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls-vlmax/vec_extract-zvfh-run.c: > Ditto. > * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls-vlmax/vec_set-run.c: Ditto. > * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls-vlmax/vec_set-zvfh-run.c: Ditto. Presumably the target selector in the dg-do ensures we only build/run these on the appropriate targets now and we don't need explicitly -march arguments? Assuming that's correct, this is fine for the trunk. jeff
