On Apr 11, 2025, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> * gcc.target/powerpc/block-cmp-8.c: Require powerpc64
> instruction execution support.
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/block-cmp-8.c
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/block-cmp-8.c
> -/* { dg-require-effective-target has_arch_p
On 4/16/25 12:27 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Since that sort of broad change will presumably not make gcc-15 (it
> wouldn't fix a regression, not even the problem addressed by the
> upthread patch),
Yes, the patch to change powerpc64 -> powerpc64_hw is definitely a
gcc-16 patch.
> ...may I un
On Apr 15, 2025, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On 4/14/25 11:35 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>> That said, that should be done in a separate patch.
>>
>> *nod*. Do you mean you're going to make that change, that I should, or
>> that you hope someone else will? I'd rather avoid duplication, and this
>>
On 4/14/25 11:35 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> That said, that should be done in a separate patch.
>
> *nod*. Do you mean you're going to make that change, that I should, or
> that you hope someone else will? I'd rather avoid duplication, and this
> is likely a somewhat involved change, since th
On Apr 14, 2025, Peter Bergner wrote:
> That said, I hate the name "powerpc64" and it should probably be
> renamed to "powerpc64_hw" to be more clear about what it's testing.
Yeah, that would make sense.
> That said, that should be done in a separate patch.
*nod*. Do you mean you're going to
On 4/11/25 1:04 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/block-cmp-8.c
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/block-cmp-8.c
> @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
> /* { dg-do run { target ilp32 } } */
> /* { dg-options "-O2 -mpowerpc64" } */
> -/* { dg-require-effective-target has_arch_p
