On Fri, 3 Nov 2023, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: > > > On 03/11/2023 07:31, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > > OK. > > > > I do wonder about the gfortran testsuite adjustments though. > > > > !GCC$ builtin (sin) attributes simd (inbranch) > > > > ! this should not be using simd clone > > y4 = sin(x8) > > > > previously we wouldn't vectorize this as no notinbranch simd function > > is available but now we do since we use the inbranch function for the > > notinbranch call. If that's desired then a better modification of > > the test would be to expect vectorization, no? > > > > I was in two minds about this. I interpreted the test to be about the fact > that sin is overloaded in fortran, given the name of the program 'program > test_overloaded_intrinsic', and thus I thought it was testing that it calls > sinf when a real(4) is passed and sin for a real(8) and that simdclones aren't > used for the wrong overload. That doesn't quite explain why the pragma for > sin(double) was added in the first place, that wouldn't have been necessary, > but then again neither are the cos and cosf. > > Happy to put it back in and test that the 'masked' simdclone is used using > some regexp too.
Looking at when the test was added it was added when supporting -fpre-include. So it hardly was a test for our SIMD capabilities but for having those OMP simd declarations. Your original change is OK. Richard.
