From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30262 invoked by alias); 19 Jan 2015 15:44:11 -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 30242 invoked by uid 89); 19 Jan 2015 15:44:07 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-qa0-f53.google.com Received: from mail-qa0-f53.google.com (HELO mail-qa0-f53.google.com) (209.85.216.53) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 15:43:58 +0000 Received: by mail-qa0-f53.google.com with SMTP id n4so24356310qaq.12 for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 07:43:56 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=SpmIv88fEVlWeSzLR7NFdsM7wgS2dYLg1HPvVmvWjvM=; b=AWQPcTAoYE859aTd3CIHnlWQwmKo4+tHqKdS7Icav7bvy6rmv3a78R0yJ+ygc9Es7f fsYbb6O3XhnUWD/HV2KMwLvoQJPQoFRMFMgJV1iqbJjZm6vH+3y6cXx5G2z5pGbIYPVN gBH5aSs6sHkm9k6iPlb8cGlAFJNXGjTdYt7MPF2DhiZmWfOa/Ii3Mz7zN4iEHdOUvAmU BDv+XY5jW3XcgySzY/flKOS1IKsds8oPtpv4J1DTJkSYhlaxap5P1IrHIQgkoK7XMLAQ Br4xH5av7b5CzoiraNHfwI0CO+/Wr6Yfp3alV0LPlzk3MywK7iqnYymp4kTbqFHb6DSf lZzw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlNoZEc9prEqkofr9fVi8SXIhu6UY8V/f0bUPfDHNp4kxaLlZTpGdnl4RTynv5YFMP7SLm+ MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.224.113.200 with SMTP id b8mr46844463qaq.35.1421682236192; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 07:43:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.140.84.176 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 07:43:56 -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 15:49:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [[ARM/AArch64][testsuite] 03/36] Add vmax, vmin, vhadd, vhsub and vrhadd tests. From: Christophe Lyon To: Marcus Shawcroft Cc: "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-01/txt/msg01690.txt.bz2 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. > /Marcus