Hi,
on s390 we vectorize 4 statements using SLP. Add s390*-*-* to the
appropriate dg-finals.
Is that OK?
Regards
Robin
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gcc.dg/vect/slp-21.c: Add s390.
>From 5f31f411ee36be8c8f3000cfc07b2609796142b7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Robin Dapp <rd...@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 17:11:54 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] testsuite: Add s390 to gcc.dg/vect/slp-21.c
On s390 we vectorize 4 statements using SLP. Add s390*-*-* to the
appropriate dg-finals.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gcc.dg/vect/slp-21.c: Add s390.
---
gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/slp-21.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/slp-21.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/slp-21.c
index 85393975b45..77152d7252a 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/slp-21.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/slp-21.c
@@ -210,7 +210,7 @@ int main (void)
Not all vect_perm targets support that, and it's a bit too specific to have
its own effective-target selector, so we just test targets directly. */
-/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "vectorizing stmts using SLP" 4 "vect" { target powerpc64*-*-* } } } */
-/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "vectorizing stmts using SLP" 2 "vect" { target { vect_strided4 && { ! powerpc64*-*-* } } } } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "vectorizing stmts using SLP" 4 "vect" { target powerpc64*-*-* s390*-*-* } } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "vectorizing stmts using SLP" 2 "vect" { target { vect_strided4 && { ! powerpc64*-*-* s390*-*-* } } } } } */
/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "vectorizing stmts using SLP" 0 "vect" { target { ! { vect_strided4 } } } } } */
--
2.23.0
