This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: altivec testcase
- From: Geoff Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>
- To: Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 17 Nov 2001 00:14:36 -0800
- Subject: Re: altivec testcase
- References: <1005962547.23202.407.camel@litecycle.cc.andrews.edu>
- Reply-to: Geoff Keating <geoffk at redhat dot com>
Aldy Hernandez <aldyh@redhat.com> writes:
> hi guys.
>
> i've gotten several emails asking how to use what we currently have for
> altivec. i think it's time to add a testcase.
>
> this test should obviously only be run for -maltivec. i'd like to add
> altivec.x and altivec.c. is this the right way to do it?
>
> eventually i'd like to replace this test with a more in depth one using
> the upcoming overloaded vec_blah() functions. it will for sure make it
> more readable (not that builtins are supposed to be readable :)).
>
> i've tested this case on actual hardware and it works :)
>
> is this ok?
>
> 2001-11-16 Aldy Hernandez <aldyh@redhat.com>
>
> * gcc.c-torture/execute/altivec.c: New.
>
> * gcc.c-torture/execute/altivec.x: New.
>
...
> + # This test is only needed for rs6000 with -maltivec
> +
> + if { ! [string match "*maltivec*" $CFLAGS] } { return 1 }
> + return 0
I think this should probably check for powerpc-* or rs6000-* triplet
too, but otherwise it seems OK.
--
- Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org> <geoffk@redhat.com>