Ha OK, I had misunderstood your first email, and thought you had the test also pass in big endian.
Thanks for the clarification. On 11 September 2014 15:56, Alan Lawrence <alan.lawre...@arm.com> wrote: > Yes, I had seen that, and the failure is expected. AFAICT the test is > correct; but the implementation of vld[234] is incorrect on bigendian, > because of https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59810 . > > HTH, Alan. > > > > > Christophe Lyon wrote: >> >> On 9 September 2014 12:19, Marcus Shawcroft <marcus.shawcr...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> On 8 September 2014 11:35, Alan Lawrence <alan.lawre...@arm.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> This adds a test of all the variants of vld2, vld2q, vld3, vld3q, vld4, >>>> and >>>> vld4q. These all use typexNxM structs and the OI/CI/XImode mechanism, so >>>> the >>>> test cross-checks this against plain ol' vst1(q?). >>>> >>>> Cross-tested on aarch64-none-elf (passing), also on aarch64_be-none-elf >>>> (https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59810). >>>> >> >> Hi Alan, >> >> On my side, your new test fails at execution on aarch64_be-none-elf: >> >> http://cbuild.validation.linaro.org/build/cross-validation/gcc/trunk/215072/report-build-info.html >> >> This seems strange since you tested it too. >> I am using the Foundation Model. >> >> Christophe. >> >>>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: >>>> >>>> * gcc.target/aarch64/vldN_1.c: New test. >>> >>> OK /Marcus >> >> > >