This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa] recent C++ Altivec breakage?
- From: "Timothy J. Wood" <tjw at omnigroup dot com>
- To: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>
- Cc: Ziemowit Laski <zlaski at apple dot com>, gcc List <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 08:47:15 -0800
- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] recent C++ Altivec breakage?
On Wednesday, March 3, 2004, at 11:08 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Mar 3, 2004, at 21:54, Timothy J. Wood wrote:
Sometime recently the Altivec splat instructions seem to have gone
south:
<http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14425>
<http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14426>
This was working a week or so ago and I was hoping to retest the
example that caused me to log
<http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14042> a while back (now
that it is supposedly fixed). Unfortunately, I can't build even
fairly simple Altivec programs with tree-ssa right now.
Both of these were broken by:
2004-02-21 Ziemowit Laski <zlaski@apple.com>
So I guess this answers a question I had -- apparently Apple doesn't
have an internal (more comprehensive) Altivec test suite. Does
Motorola or IBM have a test suite that could be used or would a
volunteer need to build one?
It seems reasonable to expect a minimal test suite to at least:
- Call every PIM-specified function at least once, checking the output
- Pseudo things like vec_splat
- 'Real' instructions like vec_vspltisw
- Test error reporting for inputs (non-const arguments)
-tim