Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Undefine vector, bool, pixel in xmmintrin.h
On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 03:47:18PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> > If we (for GCC9?) want to create a spot for target C++ tests, we should
> > just add g++.target// directories and add all the needed infrastructure
> > for those.
> >
> > Can you please revert the powerpc.exp change and move the test to
> > g++.dg/ext/ ? Thanks.
>
> Sure, I can -- I just want to point out that there is precedent here. I
> noticed
Thanks.
> that gcc.target/s390/s390.exp allows .C suffixes and there is one such
> (compile-only) test in that directory, so I assumed the framework was okay
> for this.
Yes, and apparently aarch64 and arm have a couple of *.C tests too.
Still it doesn't feel right, running C++ tests under make check-gcc rather
than check-g++ is just weird.
I think we should just introduce g++.target/ in GCC9 and move those tests
there, plus any g++.dg/ tests guarded for single targets only. g++.target
should do the -std=c++{98,11,14,17,2a} cycling etc.
Jakub
Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Undefine vector, bool, pixel in xmmintrin.h
On Apr 4, 2018, at 3:51 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 03:47:18PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>>> If we (for GCC9?) want to create a spot for target C++ tests, we should
>>> just add g++.target// directories and add all the needed infrastructure
>>> for those.
>>>
>>> Can you please revert the powerpc.exp change and move the test to
>>> g++.dg/ext/ ? Thanks.
>>
>> Sure, I can -- I just want to point out that there is precedent here. I
>> noticed
>
> Thanks.
>
>> that gcc.target/s390/s390.exp allows .C suffixes and there is one such
>> (compile-only) test in that directory, so I assumed the framework was okay
>> for this.
>
> Yes, and apparently aarch64 and arm have a couple of *.C tests too.
> Still it doesn't feel right, running C++ tests under make check-gcc rather
> than check-g++ is just weird.
>
> I think we should just introduce g++.target/ in GCC9 and move those tests
> there, plus any g++.dg/ tests guarded for single targets only. g++.target
> should do the -std=c++{98,11,14,17,2a} cycling etc.
Agreed. I'll take a note about this for GCC9.
Thanks,
Bill
Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Undefine vector, bool, pixel in xmmintrin.h
> On Apr 4, 2018, at 3:53 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 08:24:32PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote: >> I also updated the gcc.target/powerpc/powerpc.exp file to allow C++ >> tests to be placed in that directory (with a *.C suffix). > > I think this is wrong. > Historically, we've been putting target C++ tests into g++.dg/*/*.C > with appropriate target guards, the gcc.target/ tests are compiled with the > gcc driver rather than g++, so in your case it just happens to work because > it is a compile time test only (and one that doesn't use any STL headers), > e.g. dg-do run test would fail miserably. > > If we (for GCC9?) want to create a spot for target C++ tests, we should > just add g++.target// directories and add all the needed infrastructure > for those. > > Can you please revert the powerpc.exp change and move the test to > g++.dg/ext/ ? Thanks. Sure, I can -- I just want to point out that there is precedent here. I noticed that gcc.target/s390/s390.exp allows .C suffixes and there is one such (compile-only) test in that directory, so I assumed the framework was okay for this. Thanks, Bill > > Jakub >
Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Undefine vector, bool, pixel in xmmintrin.h
On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 08:24:32PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote: > I also updated the gcc.target/powerpc/powerpc.exp file to allow C++ > tests to be placed in that directory (with a *.C suffix). I think this is wrong. Historically, we've been putting target C++ tests into g++.dg/*/*.C with appropriate target guards, the gcc.target/ tests are compiled with the gcc driver rather than g++, so in your case it just happens to work because it is a compile time test only (and one that doesn't use any STL headers), e.g. dg-do run test would fail miserably. If we (for GCC9?) want to create a spot for target C++ tests, we should just add g++.target// directories and add all the needed infrastructure for those. Can you please revert the powerpc.exp change and move the test to g++.dg/ext/ ? Thanks. Jakub
Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Undefine vector, bool, pixel in xmmintrin.h
Hi Bill, On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 08:24:32PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote: > * gcc.target/powerpc/undef-bool.C: New file. > * gcc.target/powerpc/undef-bool.c: New file. I'm not sure two files with the same basename will not cause problems. In either case it is confusing. Please rename one? > --- gcc/config/rs6000/xmmintrin.h (revision 258958) > +++ gcc/config/rs6000/xmmintrin.h (working copy) > @@ -58,6 +58,18 @@ > #define _XMMINTRIN_H_INCLUDED > > #include > + > +/* Avoid collisions between altivec.h and strict adherence to C++ and > + C11 standards. This should eventually be done inside altivec.h itself, > + but only after testing a full distro build. */ > +#if defined(__STRICT_ANSI__) && (defined(__cplusplus) || \ > + (defined(__STDC_VERSION__) && \ > + __STDC_VERSION__ >= 201112L)) > +#undef vector > +#undef pixel > +#undef bool > +#endif This won't work if anything made a macro for bool (etc.) before including this header. I guess we can live with that for now (it will not work without your patch either). Okay for trunk (with the testcase name fix). Thanks! Segher
