* [PATCH, rs6000] Fix PR70957 (skip vsx-elemrev-[24].c tests for a downlevel assembler)
@ 2016-06-02 20:50 Bill Schmidt
2016-06-03 10:31 ` Segher Boessenkool
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Bill Schmidt @ 2016-06-02 20:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: GCC Patches; +Cc: Segher Boessenkool, David Edelsohn
Hi,
PR70957 reports that the two subject tests fail on an older P7 machine. These tests rely on
built-ins that exploit POWER9 vector support. It turns out that the failure occurs because the
configured assembler is downlevel, and does not support even POWER8 instructions. This
causes TARGET_P8_VECTOR to be set to false, which in turn causes TARGET_P9_VECTOR
to be set to false, so the built-ins in question are not linked into the overloaded built-in table.
The only way I know to make the test predictable is to use a run-time test to check whether
P9 vector instructions will execute. Thus this solution. I’ve verified we no longer have test
failures on machines with a downlevel assembler, and the tests run correctly on machines
with an up-to-date assembler. Is this ok for trunk and 6.2?
Thanks,
Bill
[2016-06-02] Bill Schmidt <wschmidt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
PR target/70957
* gcc.target/powerpc/vsx-elemrev-2.c: Require p9vector hardware
support.
* gcc.target/powerpc/vsx-elemrev-4.c: Likewise.
Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/vsx-elemrev-2.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/vsx-elemrev-2.c (revision 237044)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/vsx-elemrev-2.c (working copy)
@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
/* { dg-do compile { target { powerpc64le*-*-* } } } */
/* { dg-skip-if "do not override mcpu" { powerpc*-*-* } { "-mcpu=*" } { "-mcpu=power9" } } */
/* { dg-options "-mcpu=power9 -O0" } */
+/* { dg-require-effective-target p9vector_hw } */
/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "lxvd2x" 6 } } */
/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "lxvw4x" 6 } } */
/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "lxvh8x" 4 } } */
Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/vsx-elemrev-4.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/vsx-elemrev-4.c (revision 237044)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/vsx-elemrev-4.c (working copy)
@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
/* { dg-do compile { target { powerpc64-*-* } } } */
/* { dg-skip-if "do not override mcpu" { powerpc*-*-* } { "-mcpu=*" } { "-mcpu=power9" } } */
/* { dg-options "-mcpu=power9 -O0" } */
+/* { dg-require-effective-target p9vector_hw } */
/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "lxvx" 40 } } */
/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "stxvx" 40 } } */
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Fix PR70957 (skip vsx-elemrev-[24].c tests for a downlevel assembler)
2016-06-02 20:50 [PATCH, rs6000] Fix PR70957 (skip vsx-elemrev-[24].c tests for a downlevel assembler) Bill Schmidt
@ 2016-06-03 10:31 ` Segher Boessenkool
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Segher Boessenkool @ 2016-06-03 10:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bill Schmidt; +Cc: GCC Patches, David Edelsohn
On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> The only way I know to make the test predictable is to use a run-time test to check whether
> P9 vector instructions will execute. Thus this solution. Iâve verified we no longer have test
> failures on machines with a downlevel assembler, and the tests run correctly on machines
> with an up-to-date assembler. Is this ok for trunk and 6.2?
This is fine. Okay for both. Thanks,
Segher
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-06-03 10:31 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-06-02 20:50 [PATCH, rs6000] Fix PR70957 (skip vsx-elemrev-[24].c tests for a downlevel assembler) Bill Schmidt
2016-06-03 10:31 ` Segher Boessenkool
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).