This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Bounds-checking for Fortran testsuite was: Re: [gfortran, testsuite] Fix bounds checking for substrings, enable bounds chekcing in dg testsuite, assorted fixes

On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 06:45:19PM +0100, Tobias Schlüter wrote:
> Andrew Pinski <> wrote on Wed, 13 Dec 2006:
> >>My Tcl-fu is nil, but does this patch fix it?
> >
> >Most likely but this patch is not enough to keep some failures away if
> >the target GCC supports altivec but the machine does not.  Likewise for
> >SSE2.  FX's testresults show those failures.  Maybe adding the testing
> >of a trivial.f90 which contains a couple of vectorizable loops inside
> >fortran-torture.exp will fix that issue.
> Hm, so why does this not happen with the vect testsuite?  I was
> precisely following its logic, which says "on i686, always _run_
> tests".  I could add something like check_vmx_hw_available, of course,
> I'm just wondering.

I think the initial error is a Tcl problem. I'm trying to improve my
Tcl-fu so I'll take a look at it.

There are two effective targets for AltiVec tests; powerpc_altivec_ok
says the test compiler can compile AltiVec code, and vmx_hw says that
the test system can run the test.  I've got PowerPC systems that do
and do not support VMX so I'll try these tests on both.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]