On Wed, 2018-02-07 at 12:28 -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 11:16:12AM -0600, Will Schmidt wrote:
> > Noted during review of test results on P9. Due to changes and
> > improvements,
> > our codegen is different for this test on power9.
> > Modified the
On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 05:23:31PM -0600, Will Schmidt wrote:
> > > /* { dg-do compile { target { powerpc64le-*-* && lp64 } } } */
> > > /* { dg-skip-if "" { powerpc*-*-darwin* } } */
> > > /* { dg-require-effective-target powerpc_vsx_ok } */
> > > -/* { dg-options "-mvsx -O2" } */
> > > +/* {
On Wed, 2018-02-07 at 12:28 -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 11:16:12AM -0600, Will Schmidt wrote:
> > Noted during review of test results on P9. Due to changes and
> > improvements,
> > our codegen is different for this test on power9.
> > Modified the
Hi!
On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 11:16:12AM -0600, Will Schmidt wrote:
> Noted during review of test results on P9. Due to changes and improvements,
> our codegen is different for this test on power9.
> Modified the existing test to target P8, and added a P9 variant with updated
> counts.
> diff
Hi,
Noted during review of test results on P9. Due to changes and improvements,
our codegen is different for this test on power9.
Modified the existing test to target P8, and added a P9 variant with updated
counts.
Sniff-tested, now runs clean on P9. OK for trunk?
Thanks,
-Will
