From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <christophe.lyon@linaro.org>
Received: from mail-oi1-x230.google.com (mail-oi1-x230.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::230])
 by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4588C386191C
 for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Wed,  4 Nov 2020 13:30:09 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 4588C386191C
Received: by mail-oi1-x230.google.com with SMTP id 9so22139273oir.5
 for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Wed, 04 Nov 2020 05:30:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
 h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
 :message-id:subject:to:cc;
 bh=Aa8nbojHsRlkd7NRJh+hn7llsFTRuGXCqxrLUgC6Eio=;
 b=U49Cx9YmS/a0Rh/CMka7y+rSLvG3G0GuML7+pE9ZQQAdHM8ya+Pv1+i8MSt98txQKC
 Srux4Qkt/D9GmrM0p/4QzMfK/AUJY3z6eciRvaPavItwyTaRllxgfS2znI6EXLtjlNnT
 sjOTUtkUPrtJzG338GQmmfR5zO1fsqMINSHbyub7TLYxMFHdrncH/eZw1iMiricmSpH6
 K6WxE0+RplVWQYamdoBPdTwQYV2IgkvObhCp3ZIDm2XG/sBt/vKG93swtlEibxQm4UDx
 V7wjCX54B0UcDSEb1+YQv4ZK+cT3/d1Ul+vth5BHwtB5uKDmKo9YyOWg8BY1vmjWZFic
 LU6g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531Oj9NIk/a3Ok7grnLdAhfz4X7aq4zicLVQ+2jn+jvP4s/+s2ZB
 yQq5kA/hlW80uP6EeGeL92f+5j9hIkozgdsT8MzREQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxWY256LU2lGipbILbkMCR/io2w7BAbQSMIxLH7zBIvU7eqnHGS9tRMT8vbAgsfGWHaXVpAwSqEnwNwxyE6Fic=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:ea54:: with SMTP id i81mr2406076oih.48.1604496608495; 
 Wed, 04 Nov 2020 05:30:08 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <gkrv9exnflr.fsf@arm.com>
 <DB7PR08MB3002484370257BFFDF6E8C5E93110@DB7PR08MB3002.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DB7PR08MB3002484370257BFFDF6E8C5E93110@DB7PR08MB3002.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
From: Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2020 14:29:57 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKdteOZ7rvwL9mD6-JjTkfTvYd+Ck64ktvuM6u1btVBODrU5Gw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/x] arm: Add vld1_lane_bf16 + vldq_lane_bf16 intrinsics
To: Kyrylo Tkachov <Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com>
Cc: Andrea Corallo <Andrea.Corallo@arm.com>, 
 "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
 Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>, nd <nd@arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED,
 DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE,
 SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on
 server2.sourceware.org
X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-patches>,
 <mailto:gcc-patches-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-patches>,
 <mailto:gcc-patches-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2020 13:30:10 -0000

On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 at 11:27, Kyrylo Tkachov via Gcc-patches
<gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Andrea,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andrea Corallo <Andrea.Corallo@arm.com>
> > Sent: 26 October 2020 15:59
> > To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> > Cc: Kyrylo Tkachov <Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com>; Richard Earnshaw
> > <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>; nd <nd@arm.com>
> > Subject: [PATCH 1/x] arm: Add vld1_lane_bf16 + vldq_lane_bf16 intrinsics
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'd like to submit the following patch implementing the bfloat16_t
> > neon related load intrinsics: vld1_lane_bf16, vld1q_lane_bf16.
> >
> > Please see refer to:
> > ACLE <https://developer.arm.com/docs/101028/latest>
> > ISA  <https://developer.arm.com/docs/ddi0596/latest>
> >
> > Regtested and bootstrapped.
> >
> > Okay for trunk?
>

I think you need to add -mfloat-abi=hard to the dg-additional-options
otherwise vld1_lane_bf16_1.c
fails on targets with a soft float-abi default (eg arm-linux-gnueabi).

See bf16_vldn_1.c.

BTW, why did you use a different naming scheme for the tests?
(bf16_vldn_1.c vs vld1_lane_bf16_1.c)

Christophe

> Ok.
> Thanks,
> Kyrill
>
>
> >
> >   Andrea
>