Message ID | 54B587C5.6060100@codesourcery.com |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
On 13/01/15 21:01, Andrew Stubbs wrote: > On 12/01/15 13:50, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: >> In principle ok, but I'd like a comment in there explaining why we've >> done this. Can you also post under what configurations these have been >> tested ? > > Is this better? > > I tested it by running the vect.exp tests with a variety of -mcpu flags. > > Andrew > Ok, that should be enough. Please watch out for any testing fallout this week. Ramana
On 14/01/15 08:21, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: > Ok, that should be enough. Please watch out for any testing fallout this > week. Committed, thanks. Andrew
2015-01-13 Andrew Stubbs <ams@codesourcery.com> gcc/testsuite/ * lib/target-supports.exp (check_effective_target_arm_neon_ok_nocache): Don't try to test Neon on ARM architures before v7. Index: gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp =================================================================== --- gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp (revision 219058) +++ gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp (working copy) @@ -2565,6 +2565,11 @@ if { [check_no_compiler_messages_nocache arm_neon_ok object { #include "arm_neon.h" int dummy; + /* Avoid the case where a test adds -mfpu=neon, but the toolchain is + configured for -mcpu=arm926ej-s, for example. */ + #if __ARM_ARCH < 7 + #error Architecture too old for NEON. + #endif } "$flags"] } { set et_arm_neon_flags $flags return 1