From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ot1-x329.google.com (mail-ot1-x329.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::329]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E0FF93857733 for ; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 02:56:04 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org E0FF93857733 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=adacore.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=adacore.com Received: by mail-ot1-x329.google.com with SMTP id w19-20020a9d6393000000b006a43ff0f57cso2135314otk.5 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 19:56:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=adacore.com; s=google; t=1681527363; x=1684119363; h=mime-version:user-agent:message-id:in-reply-to:date:errors-to :references:organization:subject:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=DV55pxXlNyRdFEeqwcRJW0t9VqQkpJcswYemOxTEgZ8=; b=SUPkoGqksMGQgaQtT0BPHBiN08CcBOmbkXJ0lIojLBqLA1mhVXWH2xvW/9+IhRmlux UezUXwSf6GW37Gb1mi0Xh9FgC73BcsTCPA8dk13ufazcVqcjpM6GtvDBcSG7Y9Fs9gH0 ydPWJBMIBqizDBu7a9H+6vix5aD3Xul9DMXsBuiOzIZE7TGzHuCNzl5NzX07LI6Zrpcf L4/rX0iUEwxTvnFHHxy++O/jJqj4E1SdXHeiTsdBKc4mYRb5IUN6KLbXkN6sI7KIEp68 GNOyTJFK8vlAidc6gAZbtoWFb1nHdjTeAfSILNB+lzJm4ve+r7tn/CHji87kZ433k4Ff 6w5w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681527363; x=1684119363; h=mime-version:user-agent:message-id:in-reply-to:date:errors-to :references:organization:subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from :to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=DV55pxXlNyRdFEeqwcRJW0t9VqQkpJcswYemOxTEgZ8=; b=M/ZYt/Ge/nOSiqBq88NOrzW3D/+yHnMekL6FvI8jqHRYzHyZFuZssFbZMkwFklhiaQ HpqJg9zEX29hiYYr7H17rbWZoykjI7mSPVRvfWKBrYCBvCtlT0/dNsYEp0TDwJuWfIr7 YxQ/XahWG1c6e7h5wof2XYXOlUVKMQ3ZByLmZa45IDdzzDIWzNEFl8jOK71V4bpFfaY+ SLbWtp+m2AdIIfep9oLTwv2maPcLp9yFE/ZDcoKcMS2dMeNcqGd7NHKBQsUi85IadfwA dkzpKdKdhPNPpy8AGIN8StiVrLClZZJSoTnPT4F+XzDPJGhxIYHREZk2MlLdXHBEmxFp vUBQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9dejH6PJZC2uobIM/QRtexyVW9bswXGMNG7VBS8HVzaPpT67zb4 JoXAZ0JgAgF05wDyya86SInPfA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350bb6okEr0GD4DUFN0Uu8mrALmuybou4QJ1XOM5XI8ZCe//6m3mv8wwolv/fXVZWh1MRNhPWdg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:10d8:b0:6a4:3c9e:d5a9 with SMTP id z24-20020a05683010d800b006a43c9ed5a9mr2163860oto.35.1681527363132; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 19:56:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from free.home ([2804:7f1:2080:7d3c:5ae5:ac8d:ad58:825f]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m14-20020a9d644e000000b006a4308f1e2asm2283362otl.54.2023.04.14.19.56.01 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 14 Apr 2023 19:56:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from livre (livre.home [172.31.160.2]) by free.home (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 33F2tgDm2061142 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 14 Apr 2023 23:55:43 -0300 From: Alexandre Oliva To: "Kewen.Lin" Cc: Rainer Orth , Mike Stump , David Edelsohn , Segher Boessenkool , Kewen Lin , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] [PR99708] [rs6000] don't expect __ibm128 with 64-bit long double Organization: Free thinker, does not speak for AdaCore References: <8e75ef66-c654-155e-ccf6-ac95cc38c740@linux.ibm.com> <9eb5b41f-8ab1-ef2e-0429-8ce335e18304@linux.ibm.com> Errors-To: aoliva@lxoliva.fsfla.org Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 23:55:42 -0300 In-Reply-To: (Kewen Lin's message of "Fri, 7 Apr 2023 17:49:05 +0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,GIT_PATCH_0,KAM_SHORT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Apr 7, 2023, "Kewen.Lin" wrote: > This new version causes unresolved record on my side, it's due to the > compilation failed to produce executable. Yeah, it does that, I didn't realize that was undesirable. > So I think we need to make the file be compiled well, how about something like: That worked for me as well, so... > ? OK if it looks reasonable to you and the testing goes well. Thanks! ... I'm putting this in, thanks: [PR99708] [rs6000] don't expect __ibm128 with 64-bit long double When long double is 64-bit wide, as on vxworks, the rs6000 backend defines neither the __ibm128 type nor the __SIZEOF_IBM128__ macro, but pr99708.c expected both to be always defined. Adjust the test to match the implementation. Co-Authored-By: Kewen Lin for gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog * gcc.target/powerpc/pr99708.c: Accept lack of __SIZEOF_IBM128__ when long double is 64-bit wide. --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr99708.c | 10 +++++++++- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr99708.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr99708.c index 02b40ebc40d3d..c6aa0511b8925 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr99708.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr99708.c @@ -14,9 +14,17 @@ int main (void) { if (__SIZEOF_FLOAT128__ != sizeof (__float128) - || __SIZEOF_IBM128__ != sizeof (__ibm128)) + /* FIXME: Once type __ibm128 gets supported with long-double-64, + we shouldn't need this conditional #ifdef and xfail. */ +#ifdef __SIZEOF_IBM128__ + || __SIZEOF_IBM128__ != sizeof (__ibm128) +#else + || 1 +#endif + ) abort (); return 0; } +/* { dg-xfail-run-if "unsupported type __ibm128 with long-double-64" { longdouble64 } } */ -- Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/ Free Software Activist GNU Toolchain Engineer Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice but very few check the facts. Ask me about