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 613093858C53; Wed, 21 Jun 2023 17:30:08 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 613093858C53
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1687368608;
	bh=lKvRGLHBhxNUbmhxB6oOlkdZhWHzrVDBP64UTqIaGAM=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=PTbl6B8ooIaK+KAcqFfCPYqhv46VzQqhZHkLsjGOvx2ePiEZuBcjXbEZsNFmUy4sb
	 rE73cEhqF8vAVZ9hFpgy/95c3BCJAI07PDDxRQT2b4kr5fC3Q6Wgs+NVbYUgTnnOPr
	 YqWKhKgB2Cfv/OBT/sT8NCNiQRjwLnNhYW+D28mU=
From: "bergner 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 17:30:07 +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: bergner 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-lv0GAutnG8@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 #5 from Peter Bergner <bergner at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #4)
> 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?

The creation of the __ibm128 type is guarded by:

  if (TARGET_LONG_DOUBLE_128 && (!TARGET_IEEEQUAD || TARGET_FLOAT128_TYPE))

Since the __ibm128 type is independent of what long double defaults to, I
assume the fix is to just remove the TARGET_LONG_DOUBLE_128 test giving us:

  if (!TARGET_IEEEQUAD || TARGET_FLOAT128_TYPE)

Or are there some (bad) inherent assumptions in the backend that IBM double
double support needing a 128-bit long double?


The creation of the __ieee128 type is only guarded by:

  if (TARGET_FLOAT128_TYPE)=