RE: [PATCH v2] testsuite: Skip intrinsics test if arm

[Kyrylo Tkachov <Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christophe Lyon <Christophe.Lyon@arm.com>
> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 8:41 AM
> To: Torbjörn SVENSSON via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>;
> Torbjörn SVENSSON <torbjorn.svensson@foss.st.com>; Richard Sandiford
> <Richard.Sandiford@arm.com>; Kyrylo Tkachov <Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] testsuite: Skip intrinsics test if arm
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 
> On 9/23/22 19:24, Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > Torbjörn SVENSSON via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
> >> In the test cases, it's clearly written that intrinsics is not
> >> implemented on arm*. A simple xfail does not help since there are
> >> link error and that would cause an UNRESOLVED testcase rather than
> >> XFAIL.
> >> By changing to dg-skip-if, the entire test case is omitted.
> >>
> >> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> >>
> >> 	* gcc.target/aarch64/advsimd-intrinsics/vld1x2.c: Replace
> >> 	dg-xfail-if with gd-skip-if.
> >
> 
> Since Kyrill explicitly added the dg-xfail for arm in
> r8-6382-gda1f8d7f12c2ef , I am not sure he is OK with making the failure
> disappear?

Thanks for checking. These intrinsics are not implemented in arm, but they should be. We just never got around to adding the support.
I don't know if we have a recommendation for how to mark such cases.
So I'm okay witch changing this to dg-skip-if, but perhaps we should change the message to "unimplemented" rather than "unsupported"?
Thanks,
Kyrill

> 
> Christophe
> 
> > Typo: s/gd/dg/
> >
> > OK with that change, thanks.
> >
> > Richard
> >
> >> 	* gcc.target/aarch64/advsimd-intrinsics/vld1x3.c: Likewise.
> >> 	* gcc.target/aarch64/advsimd-intrinsics/vld1x4.c: Likewise.
> >>
> >> Co-Authored-By: Yvan ROUX  <yvan.roux@foss.st.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Torbjörn SVENSSON  <torbjorn.svensson@foss.st.com>
> >> ---
> >>   gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/advsimd-intrinsics/vld1x2.c | 2 +-
> >>   gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/advsimd-intrinsics/vld1x3.c | 2 +-
> >>   gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/advsimd-intrinsics/vld1x4.c | 2 +-
> >>   3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/advsimd-intrinsics/vld1x2.c
> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/advsimd-intrinsics/vld1x2.c
> >> index 92a139bc523..f933102be47 100644
> >> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/advsimd-intrinsics/vld1x2.c
> >> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/advsimd-intrinsics/vld1x2.c
> >> @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
> >>   /* We haven't implemented these intrinsics for arm yet.  */
> >> -/* { dg-xfail-if "" { arm*-*-* } } */
> >>   /* { dg-do run } */
> >> +/* { dg-skip-if "unsupported" { arm*-*-* } } */
> >>   /* { dg-options "-O3" } */
> >>
> >>   #include <arm_neon.h>
> >> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/advsimd-intrinsics/vld1x3.c
> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/advsimd-intrinsics/vld1x3.c
> >> index 6ddd507d9cf..b20dec061b5 100644
> >> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/advsimd-intrinsics/vld1x3.c
> >> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/advsimd-intrinsics/vld1x3.c
> >> @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
> >>   /* We haven't implemented these intrinsics for arm yet.  */
> >> -/* { dg-xfail-if "" { arm*-*-* } } */
> >>   /* { dg-do run } */
> >> +/* { dg-skip-if "unsupported" { arm*-*-* } } */
> >>   /* { dg-options "-O3" } */
> >>
> >>   #include <arm_neon.h>
> >> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/advsimd-intrinsics/vld1x4.c
> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/advsimd-intrinsics/vld1x4.c
> >> index 451a0afc6aa..e59f845880e 100644
> >> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/advsimd-intrinsics/vld1x4.c
> >> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/advsimd-intrinsics/vld1x4.c
> >> @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
> >>   /* We haven't implemented these intrinsics for arm yet.  */
> >> -/* { dg-xfail-if "" { arm*-*-* } } */
> >>   /* { dg-do run } */
> >> +/* { dg-skip-if "unsupported" { arm*-*-* } } */
> >>   /* { dg-options "-O3" } */
> >>
> >>   #include <arm_neon.h>