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

on 2024/4/30 07:11, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Apr 29, 2024, "Kewen.Lin" wrote: > >> Thanks for catching this and sorry >> that I didn't check it before suggesting it, I think we can aggressively >> drop this effective target instead to avoid any possible confusion. > > The 128-bit ones,

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

On Apr 29, 2024, "Kewen.Lin" wrote: > Thanks for catching this and sorry > that I didn't check it before suggesting it, I think we can aggressively > drop this effective target instead to avoid any possible confusion. The 128-bit ones, unfortunately, follow the same pattern but are probably

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

on 2024/4/29 15:20, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Apr 28, 2024, "Kewen.Lin" wrote: > >> OK, from this perspective IMHO it seems more clear to adopt xfail >> with effective target long_double_64bit? > > That's effective target is quite broken, alas. I doubt it's used > anywhere: it calls an

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

On Apr 28, 2024, "Kewen.Lin" wrote: > OK, from this perspective IMHO it seems more clear to adopt xfail > with effective target long_double_64bit? That's effective target is quite broken, alas. I doubt it's used anywhere: it calls an undefined proc, and its memcmp call seems to have the size

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

On Apr 28, 2024, "Kewen.Lin" wrote: > OK, from this perspective IMHO it seems more clear to adopt xfail > with effective target long_double_64bit? *nod*, yeah, that makes sense. I'm going to travel this week, to speak at FSF's LibrePlanet conference, so I'll look into massaging the patch into

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

Hi, on 2024/4/28 16:20, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Apr 23, 2024, "Kewen.Lin" 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,

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

On Apr 23, 2024, "Kewen.Lin" 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

Re: [PATCH] ppc: testsuite: float128-hw{, 4}.c need -mlong-double-128 (was: [PATCH] ppc: testsuite: pr79004 needs -mlong-double-128)

Hi! Please don't send patches as replies. On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 10:33:35AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Apr 14, 2022, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > > * gcc.target/powerpr/pr79004.c: Add -mlong-double-128. > > Just like pr79004, float128-hw.c requires -mlong-double-128 for some > the

[PATCH] ppc: testsuite: float128-hw{,4}.c need -mlong-double-128 (was: [PATCH] ppc: testsuite: pr79004 needs -mlong-double-128)

On Apr 14, 2022, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > * gcc.target/powerpr/pr79004.c: Add -mlong-double-128. Just like pr79004, float128-hw.c requires -mlong-double-128 for some the expected asm opcodes to be output on target variants that have 64-bit long doubles. That's because their expanders,

[PATCH] ppc: testsuite: pr79004 needs -mlong-double-128 (was: Re: ppc: testsuite: prune float128 partial support warnings)

On Apr 13, 2022, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > * gcc.target/powerpc/pr79004.c: Prune the -mfloat128 warning. I failed to mention that this fixed a problem in the test, but that was not enough for this test to pass; here's an incremental patch that is. Some of the asm opcodes expected by