This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH, V3, #8 of 10], Miscellaneous prefixed addressing tests
- From: Segher Boessenkool <segher at kernel dot crashing dot org>
- To: Michael Meissner <meissner at linux dot ibm dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, dje dot gcc at gmail dot com
- Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2019 17:56:58 -0500
- Subject: Re: [PATCH, V3, #8 of 10], Miscellaneous prefixed addressing tests
- References: <20190826173320.GA7958@ibm-toto.the-meissners.org> <20190826214808.GH11790@ibm-toto.the-meissners.org> <20190903231723.GJ9749@gate.crashing.org> <20190905210125.GB29280@ibm-toto.the-meissners.org>
On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 05:01:25PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 06:17:23PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > +/* { dg-do compile { target { powerpc*-*-* && lp64 } } } */
> >
> > All of these except the ld and std and lwa should work on -m32 as well,
> > right?
>
> I don't believe so.
I don't see why not, but...
> I don't think prefixed load/store instructions work on 32-bit at all.
Please test for prefixed insns, instead. You can then use that test
wherever it is needed, and if you disable 32-bit in there for no reason
at all, we can re-enable it on all tests easily.
It is also good documentation value.
> > Right now this all is only supported on powerpc64le-linux, but it won't
> > stay that way. I'm not looking forward to having to change all the tests,
> > let's try to test for support of the actual feature we need, instead.
>
> It depends on whether the test just tests the instruction (as many of these
> tests do), or whether they are testing things using ELF syntax (i.e. @got and
> @got@pcrel).
I don't see why? You obviously should not test things for ABI A when
testing ABI B. That does not mean you should not run your tests wherever
possible; just that you should not run them where *not* possible.
Segher