On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 09:08:58AM -0700, Carl Love wrote:
> I see the error print statement you changed so that it would not wrap.
> I have always been told it is best not to break the print statement
> across two lines. The argument is it makes it harder to find it in the
> code when using
Hi!
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 09:08:58AM -0700, Carl Love wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-10-22 at 17:26 +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> > FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/vec-splati-runnable.c 1 blank line(s) in
> > output
> > FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/vec-splati-runnable.c (test for excess
> > errors)
> > Excess errors:
On Thu, 2020-10-22 at 17:26 +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/vec-splati-runnable.c 1 blank line(s) in
> output
> FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/vec-splati-runnable.c (test for excess
> errors)
> Excess errors:
> rs6000_emit_xxspltidp_v2df called ...
>
> and running the test fails.
FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/vec-splati-runnable.c 1 blank line(s) in output
FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/vec-splati-runnable.c (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
rs6000_emit_xxspltidp_v2df called ...
and running the test fails. As the comment says
/* Although the instruction says the results are
