From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 7AA0D3858D28; Wed, 21 Jun 2023 23:19:22 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 7AA0D3858D28
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1687389562;
	bh=PJ00wXpN69DvpVDQ7XuJdNqjmwzdCAwfffAEKINtAX4=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=wVmoP031NNENfhvojfOIE9D7QslUNadDBXV5dnfow2pf179UUCGyhiDyI9GR8PXMj
	 OE31nV+5FZeo0YJ+ks8DTV/lgxKTMDuIK5ySRuwh6DRoDRJQDFUC9m3TOO5/TrLjJw
	 EZ6hQmmWagW0P4IZI1qq0eqsAzq8fHOQ2KIDG52w=
From: "segher at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug testsuite/101002] Some powerpc tests fail with -mlong-double-64
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2023 23:19:21 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: testsuite
X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: testsuite-fail
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: segher at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-101002-4-FVhvfzkl77@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-101002-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-101002-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D101002

--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool <segher at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #4)
> These die because the struct we're using to check the alignment of uses l=
ong
> double as the "big" aligned type.  We could either disable the tests usin=
g a
> "dg-require-effective-target longdouble128" or we could use a different m=
ore
> aligned type in the struct.  Maybe _Float128 or _Decimal128 or use an
> attribute aligned?   Thoughts?

Maybe just some vector type?  Those have 128-bit alignment even with
-mno-altivec,
right?

> gcc.target/powerpc/pr85657-3.c
> gcc.target/powerpc/signbit-1.c
> pr85657-3.c:38:20: error: unknown type name =E2=80=98__ibm128=E2=80=99; d=
id you mean
> =E2=80=98__int128=E2=80=99?
>=20
> These die because we don't create the type __ibm128 when using
> -mlong-double-64, which seems strange since we do create the __float128 t=
ype
> used in the test cases.
>=20
> Mike, I assume the __ibm128 type should always be created?

It always should, yes.  Always.  Unconditionally.=