From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2522 invoked by alias); 19 Jan 2015 16:54:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 2510 invoked by uid 89); 19 Jan 2015 16:54:51 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-vc0-f173.google.com Received: from mail-vc0-f173.google.com (HELO mail-vc0-f173.google.com) (209.85.220.173) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 16:54:50 +0000 Received: by mail-vc0-f173.google.com with SMTP id kv19so10430673vcb.4 for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 08:54:47 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.28.233 with SMTP id e9mr12522795vdh.61.1421686487868; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 08:54:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.52.130.14 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 08:54:47 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <1421162314-25779-1-git-send-email-christophe.lyon@linaro.org> <1421162314-25779-4-git-send-email-christophe.lyon@linaro.org> <54B9187A.7000406@arm.com> Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 17:33:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [[ARM/AArch64][testsuite] 03/36] Add vmax, vmin, vhadd, vhsub and vrhadd tests. From: Marcus Shawcroft To: Christophe Lyon Cc: "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-01/txt/msg01706.txt.bz2 On 19 January 2015 at 15:43, Christophe Lyon wrote: > On 19 January 2015 at 14:29, Marcus Shawcroft > wrote: >> On 16 January 2015 at 17:52, Christophe Lyon wrote: >> >>>> OK provided, as per the previous couple, that we don;t regression or >>>> introduce new fails on aarch64[_be] or aarch32. >>> >>> This patch shows failures on aarch64 and aarch64_be for vmax and vmin >>> when the input is -NaN. >>> It's a corner case, and my reading of the ARM ARM is that the result >>> should the same as on aarch32. >>> I haven't had time to look at it in more details though. >>> So, not OK? >> >> They should have the same behaviour in aarch32 and aarch64. Did you >> test on HW or a model? >> > I ran the tests on qemu for aarch32 and aarch64-linux, and on the > foundation model for aarch64*-elf. Leave this one out until we understand why it fails. /Marcus