Re: [PATCH, GCC/testsuite/ARM] Consistently check for neon in vect effective targets

[Kyrill Tkachov <kyrylo.tkachov@foss.arm.com>]

Hi Thomas,

On 28/06/17 15:49, Thomas Preudhomme wrote:
> On 20/06/17 13:44, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>>
>>
>> The results with a more recent trunk (r249356)) are here:
>> http://people.linaro.org/~christophe.lyon/cross-validation/gcc-test-patches/249356-consistent_neon_check.patch/report-build-info.html
>>
>> They are slightly different, but still tedious to check ;-)
>
> I've checked arm-none-linux-gnueabi and arm-none-linux-gnueabihf and found that:
>
> * there's no new FAIL
> * changes to UNSUPPORTED and NA are for the same files
> * changes are only for tests in a vect directory
> * changes for arm-none-linux-gnueabihf are only when targeting vfp without neon (tests are disabled because there is no vector unit)
>
> Changes to arm-none-linux-gnueabi makes sense since this defaults to soft floating point and none of the test disabled adds any option to select another variant.
>
> I believe this all makes sense.
>
> Therefore, is this ok to commit?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Thomas

@@ -4987,10 +4982,10 @@ proc check_effective_target_vect_shift_char { } {
  
  proc check_effective_target_vect_long { } {
      if { [istarget i?86-*-*] || [istarget x86_64-*-*]
-	 || (([istarget powerpc*-*-*]
-              && ![istarget powerpc-*-linux*paired*])
+	 || (([istarget powerpc*-*-*]
+              && ![istarget powerpc-*-linux*paired*])
                && [check_effective_target_ilp32])


Is this just a whitespace change?
If it is intended then okay.

This is okay with a ChangeLog entry.

Thanks, this looks like a good change.
Kyrill