On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 10:17:44AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
>
>
> On 12/10/24 12:48 PM, Dimitar Dimitrov wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 09, 2024 at 06:05:10PM +0100, Robin Dapp wrote:
> > > > +/* { dg-additional-options "-mabi=lp64d" { target { rv64 } } } */
> > > > +/* { dg-additional-options "-mabi=ilp32d" { target { rv32 } } } */
> > >
> > > Wouldn't skipping those tests also be reasonable?
> > > I.e. adding a target to the compile directive instead. I'd find that a
> > > bit
> > > more intuitive than overriding the ABI.
> > > The same might apply to the other cases you touched. In the end it's
> > > probably
> > > a question of taste but why if your test target mandates an ABI that
> > > cannot
> > > compile vector tests, why compile them at all?
> >
> > Yes, it's perfectly reasonable to skip such tests for ILP32E default
> > ABI. I can prepare a patch to filter with "check_effective_target_riscv_e".
> I'd say let's go with the original or this proposal. I lean slightly
> towards this proposal as I can easily see us having tests that are specific
> to to 32E and having the target selector in place will make that easier.
>
Ack. I'll send a new version with this proposal for effective target filter.
Regards,
Dimitar
>
> >
> > But instead of adding a new effective_target filter to hundreds of test
> > cases, we could simply prune the test results. Would the bellow
> > approach be acceptable?
> Let's avoid the pruning approach.
>
> jeff
>
