Hi!
Thanks for fixing it, just testsuite nits.
On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 03:22:53PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-early-break_100-pr113287.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
> > +/* { dg-add-options vect_early_break } */
> > +/* { dg-require-effective-target vect_early_break } */
> > +/* { dg-require-effective-target vect_int } */
> > +/* { dg-require-effective-target bitint } */
This test doesn't need bitint effective target.
But relies on long being 64-bit, otherwise e.g.
0x50000000000UL doesn't need to fit or shifting it by 60 is invalid.
So, maybe use lp64 effective target instead.
> > +
> > +__attribute__((noipa)) void
> > +bar (unsigned long *p)
> > +{
> > + __builtin_memset (p, 0, 142 * sizeof (unsigned long));
> > + p[17] = 0x50000000000UL;
> > +}
> > +
> > + if ((unsigned long) (((long) (w << 60)) >> 60) != v)
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-early-break_99-pr113287.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
> > +/* { dg-add-options vect_early_break } */
> > +/* { dg-require-effective-target vect_early_break } */
> > +/* { dg-require-effective-target vect_int } */
> > +/* { dg-require-effective-target bitint } */
bitint effective target just ensures there is some _BitInt support,
but not necessarily 998 or 9020 bit ones.
There are some specific precision bitint effective targets (e.g. bitint575),
what I generally use though is just guard the stuff on __BITINT_MAXWIDTH__ >=
NNN.
Perhaps for this testcase you could
#if __BITINT_MAXWIDTH__ >= 998
typedef _BitInt(998) B998;
#else
typedef long long B998;
#endif
#if __BITINT_MAXWIDTH__ >= 9020
typedef _BitInt(9020) B9020;
#else
typedef long long B9020;
#endif
and use the new typedefs in the rest of the test.
Jakub
