On 12/17/2012 06:23 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > On 27/11/12 20:47, Mike Stump wrote: >> On Nov 27, 2012, at 8:51 AM, James Greenhalgh <james.greenha...@arm.com> >> wrote: >>> In particular, we add support for vectorizing across: >>> >>> ceil (), ceilf (), lceil (), >> >>> We add testcases ensuring that each of the expected functions are >>> vectorized. As the i386 and rs6000 backends both ostensibly support >>> these optimisations we add these tests to the generic testsuites, but >>> only wire them up for AArch64. As a target may support any subset of >>> these vectorizations we need a check_effective_target macro for >>> each of them. >>> >>> Because of this change to the generic test code I've CCed Janis >>> Johnson and Mike Stump. >> >> Gosh… leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I see why you did it that way… >> So, let me just ping folks, anyone see a better way to do this? If no one >> admits to having a better solution, I'll approve it. Let's give them a few >> days to come up with something concrete, if they fail, Ok. >> > > > I've been pondering this one for a bit. I wonder if having a single > function > > check_effective_target_vect_libcall(func) > > where func is the name of the function you needed to check, might be > cleaner. > > The idea is that the one function might access an array (set up on the > first call) and then just use "info exists et_vect_libcalls(func)" to do > the body of the check. > > Not entirely sure my expect foo is good enough to code this up, though. > > R. >
I suspect that the Tcl code to support an array would end up being messier and less maintainable. Janis
