[PATCH] Fix typo in fold-vec-load-builtin_vec_xl-* tests.

Michael Meissner meissner@linux.ibm.com
Thu Aug 12 18:11:49 GMT 2021


On Sun, Aug 08, 2021 at 03:21:02PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 10:44:36PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
> > 	* gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-load-builtin_vec_xl-char.c: Fix
> > 	typo in regular expression.
> > 	* gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-load-builtin_vec_xl-double.c:
> > 	Likewise.
> > 	* gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-load-builtin_vec_xl-float.c:
> > 	Likewise.
> > 	* gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-load-builtin_vec_xl-int.c:
> > 	Likewise.
> > 	* gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-load-builtin_vec_xl-longlong.c:
> > 	Likewise.
> > 	* gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-load-builtin_vec_xl-short.c:
> > 	Likewise.
> 
> Please don't break changelog lines unnecessarily.

Unfortunately with the length of the filenames, and the 79 character limit per
line, there isn't much option.

> 
> This fixes typos, so the tests failed before, and now pass?
> 
> > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-load-builtin_vec_xl-float.c
> > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-load-builtin_vec_xl-float.c
> > @@ -28,4 +28,4 @@ BUILD_VAR_TEST( test4, vector float, signed long long, vector float);
> >  BUILD_VAR_TEST( test5, vector float, signed int, vector float);
> >  BUILD_CST_TEST( test6, vector float, 12, vector float);
> >  
> > -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {\mlxvw4x\M|\mlxvd2x\M|\mlxvx\M|\mp?lvx\M} 6 } } */
> > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {\mlxvw4x\M|\mlxvd2x\M|\mlxvx\M|\mp?lxv\M} 6 } } */
> 
> You can write
>   {\mlxvw4x\M|\mlxvd2x\M|\mp?lxvx?\M}
> instead, or even
>   {\mp?lxv}
> This would be a useful future cleanup: it makes these tests both more
> readable and lower maintenance.  What you test here is how many vector
> loads there are, and the specific kind of vector load is immaterial in
> this test.
> 
> This also make it clear you are now disallowing "lvx" here.  Is that on
> purpose?  Is there any reason we would not allow it here?  We do not
> *expect* it of course, but depending on that means we will have more
> patches to this testcase later.  So maybe something like
>   {\mp?lxv|\mlvx\M}

Ok, though the pattern probably should be:

    {\mp?lxvx?|\mlvx\M}

> Okay for trunk, thanks!  Please think about making these tests more
> robust :-)
> 
> 
> Segher

-- 
Michael Meissner, IBM
IBM, M/S 2506R, 550 King Street, Littleton, MA 01460-6245, USA
email: meissner@linux.ibm.com, phone: +1 (978) 899-4797


More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list