| Message ID | 571E28D0.5010804@foss.arm.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Kyrill Tkachov <kyrylo.tkachov@foss.arm.com> wrote: > > On 22/04/16 12:20, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: >> >> >> On 22/04/16 11:34, Marc Glisse wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2016, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On 22/04/16 10:43, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 22/04/16 10:42, Marc Glisse wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2016, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2016-04-21 Marc Glisse <marc.glisse@inria.fr> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> gcc/ >>>>>>>> * match.pd (min(-x, -y), max(-x, -y), min(~x, ~y), max(~x, ~y)): >>>>>>>> New transformations. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> gcc/testsuite/ >>>>>>>> * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-2.c: New testcase. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I see the new testcase failing on aarch64: >>>>>>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-2.c scan-tree-dump optimized >>>>>>> "__builtin_fmin" >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Strange, it seems to work in >>>>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2016-04/msg02120.html >>>>>> >>>>>> Is that on some freestanding kind of setup where the builtin might be >>>>>> disabled? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ah, this is aarch64-none-elf which uses newlib as the C library. >>>>> Let me check on aarch64-none-linux-gnu and get back to you. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yeah, I see it passing on aarch64-none-linux-gnu. >>>> Do we have an appropriate effective target check to gate this test on? >>> >>> >>> I don't know, I have a hard time finding something related. I am not even >>> convinced the test should be skipped. It looks like __builtin_fmax was >>> recognized, otherwise you would get a warning and a conversion int-double. >>> Maybe gimple_call_combined_fn rejects it? Ah, builtins.def declares it with >>> DEF_C99_BUILTIN, which checks targetm.libc_has_function (function_c99_misc). >>> I assume newlib fails that check? That would make c99_runtime a relevant >>> target check. >>> >> >> Yeah, adding the below makes this test UNSUPPORTED on aarch64-none-elf. >> /* { dg-add-options c99_runtime } */ >> /* { dg-require-effective-target c99_runtime } */ >> >> I'll prepare a patch. >> > > Sorry for the delay, here it is. > Ok to commit? Ok. Richard. > Thanks, > Kyrill > > 2016-04-25 Kyrylo Tkachov <kyrylo.tkachov@arm.com> > > * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-2.c: Require c99_runtime and add the > associated options. > >> Thanks, >> Kyrill > >
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-2.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-2.c index 98c38b1aa773d04a5d7cb36df73db8924d83ed65..87ff94cef1f3b178b315358f246c9a3f32383945 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-2.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-2.c @@ -1,5 +1,7 @@ /* { dg-do compile } */ /* { dg-options "-O -fstrict-overflow -fdump-tree-optimized" } */ +/* { dg-add-options c99_runtime } */ +/* { dg-require-effective-target c99_runtime } */ static int max(int a,int b){return (a<b)?b:a;} int f(int x,int y){return max(-x,-y);}