Ping?


On Tue, 23 May 2023 at 16:59, Stamatis Markianos-Wright <
stam.markianos-wright@arm.com> wrote:

>
> On 23/05/2023 15:41, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> > Glibc defines int32_t as 'int' while newlib defines it as 'long int'.
> >
> > Although these correspond to the same size, g++ complains when using
> the
>
>
>
>                                                    'wrong' version:
> >    invalid conversion from 'long int*' to 'int32_t*' {aka 'int*'}
> [-fpermissive]
> > or
> >    invalid conversion from 'int*' to 'int32_t*' {aka 'long int*'}
> [-fpermissive]
> >
> > when calling vst1q(int32*, int32x4_t) with a first parameter of type
> > 'long int *' (resp. 'int *')
> >
> > To make this test pass with any type of toolchain, this patch defines
> > 'word_type' according to which libc is in use.
>
> Thank you for spotting this! I think this fix is needed on all of
> GCC12,13,trunk btw (it should apply cleanly)
>
>
> >
> > 2023-05-23  Christophe Lyon  <christophe.lyon@linaro.org>
> >
> >       gcc/testsuite/
> >       * gcc.target/arm/mve/intrinsics/mve_intrinsic_type_overloads-int.c:
> >       Support both definitions of int32_t.
> > ---
> >   .../mve_intrinsic_type_overloads-int.c        | 28 ++++++++++---------
> >   1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git
> a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/mve/intrinsics/mve_intrinsic_type_overloads-int.c
> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/mve/intrinsics/mve_intrinsic_type_overloads-int.c
> > index 7947dc024bc..ab51cc8b323 100644
> > ---
> a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/mve/intrinsics/mve_intrinsic_type_overloads-int.c
> > +++
> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/mve/intrinsics/mve_intrinsic_type_overloads-int.c
> > @@ -47,14 +47,22 @@ foo2 (short * addr, int16x8_t value)
> >     vst1q (addr, value);
> >   }
> >
> > -void
> > -foo3 (int * addr, int32x4_t value)
> > -{
> > -  vst1q (addr, value); /* { dg-warning "invalid conversion" "" { target
> c++ } } */
> > -}
> > +/* Glibc defines int32_t as 'int' while newlib defines it as 'long int'.
> > +
> > +   Although these correspond to the same size, g++ complains when using
> the
> > +   'wrong' version:
> > +  invalid conversion from 'long int*' to 'int32_t*' {aka 'int*'}
> [-fpermissive]
> > +
> > +  The trick below is to make this test pass whether using glibc-based or
> > +  newlib-based toolchains.  */
> >
> > +#if defined(__GLIBC__)
> > +#define word_type int
> > +#else
> > +#define word_type long int
> > +#endif
> >   void
> > -foo4 (long * addr, int32x4_t value)
> > +foo3 (word_type * addr, int32x4_t value)
> >   {
> >     vst1q (addr, value);
> >   }
> > @@ -78,13 +86,7 @@ foo7 (unsigned short * addr, uint16x8_t value)
> >   }
> >
> >   void
> > -foo8 (unsigned int * addr, uint32x4_t value)
> > -{
> > -  vst1q (addr, value); /* { dg-warning "invalid conversion" "" { target
> c++ } } */
> > -}
> > -
> > -void
> > -foo9 (unsigned long * addr, uint32x4_t value)
> > +foo8 (unsigned word_type * addr, uint32x4_t value)
> >   {
> >     vst1q (addr, value);
> >   }
>