Re: [PATCH] ppc: testsuite: pr79004 needs -mlong-double-128

[Alexandre Oliva <oliva@adacore.com>]

On Apr 23, 2024, "Kewen.Lin" <linkw@linux.ibm.com> wrote:

> This patch seemed to miss to CC gcc-patches list. :)

Oops, sorry, thanks for catching that.

Here it is.  FTR, you've already responded suggesting an apparent
preference for addressing PR105359, but since I meant to contribute it,
I'm reposting is to gcc-patches, now with a reference to the PR.


ppc: testsuite: pr79004 needs -mlong-double-128

Some of the asm opcodes expected by pr79004 depend on
-mlong-double-128 to be output.  E.g., without this flag, the
conditions of patterns @extenddf<mode>2 and extendsf<mode>2 do not
hold, and so GCC resorts to libcalls instead of even trying
rs6000_expand_float128_convert.

Perhaps the conditions are too strict, and they could enable the use
of conversion insns involving __ieee128/_Float128 even with 64-bit
long doubles.  Alas, for now, we need this flag for the test to pass
on target variants that use 64-bit long doubles.


for  gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog

	* gcc.target/powerpr/pr79004.c: Add -mlong-double-128.
---
 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr79004.c |    2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr79004.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr79004.c
index e411702dc98a9..061a0e83fe2ad 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr79004.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr79004.c
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 /* { dg-do compile { target { powerpc*-*-* && lp64 } } } */
 /* { dg-require-effective-target powerpc_p9vector_ok } */
-/* { dg-options "-mdejagnu-cpu=power9 -O2 -mfloat128" } */
+/* { dg-options "-mdejagnu-cpu=power9 -O2 -mfloat128 -mlong-double-128" } */
 /* { dg-prune-output ".-mfloat128. option may not be fully supported" } */
 
 #include <math.h>


-- 
Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker            https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/
   Free Software Activist                   GNU Toolchain Engineer
More tolerance and less prejudice are key for inclusion and diversity
Excluding neuro-others for not behaving ""normal"" is *not* inclusive