From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 69472 invoked by alias); 26 Nov 2018 21:13:43 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 69460 invoked by uid 89); 26 Nov 2018 21:13:43 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-spam-relays-external:ESMTPA, day X-HELO: resqmta-po-03v.sys.comcast.net Received: from resqmta-po-03v.sys.comcast.net (HELO resqmta-po-03v.sys.comcast.net) (96.114.154.162) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 26 Nov 2018 21:13:42 +0000 Received: from resomta-po-09v.sys.comcast.net ([96.114.154.233]) by resqmta-po-03v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTP id RO0ag9Vlqep6JROCKgu9Tp; Mon, 26 Nov 2018 21:13:40 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20161114; t=1543266820; bh=Q6wf7Tmvc+K+fo/cF0qo+vKKPCrpQ8LWkmmn8HF827Q=; h=Received:Received:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:Date: Message-Id:To; b=M5jyBY4Hai5SwrqT+KGQocxSazaGCWwNmzoEUIKNur4hod4r9gYB7Gt7bbG2JFK/c 9zDvomQs1NYYObFhQ5lIdQr0v/33xxY160940wHkp7WuiJjXTDnDZUa0ZA2UCzc+6C r/jzFxR2NlOkfQQGQSc5YVKwhvMoLRmquU1I/hnHJcrLx+oNCYC14GMc4dXqMiA94L 3Jtoq49npCZLJx3Hvzh6RiTP7S+bGaqPf7p4hZKyJqPH2sewefsRzXyYhtktGmMQcN vWVgY77e4msdQ7tsUGI65d3+qnRY8r6ZanE/92UcGW36MzVsIuNZ/mG4Pp6g0xoTFl Csn4R7n5k7Mmw== Received: from [IPv6:2601:640:4001:ad2:b07f:ae47:cdc6:360a] ([IPv6:2601:640:4001:ad2:b07f:ae47:cdc6:360a]) by resomta-po-09v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTPA id ROCJgQiNwOYvAROCJgSf9t; Mon, 26 Nov 2018 21:13:40 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\)) Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] Port testsuite to GCN From: Mike Stump In-Reply-To: <693FC594-0F70-46AC-916D-C923F966ED1B@comcast.net> Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 21:13:00 -0000 Cc: Jeff Law , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <0767D01A-7D1A-4FD0-84C9-47C11DDCC04D@comcast.net> References: <2d4f15916d3fd76c3c125eca60a86f5be5b807c0.1542381960.git.ams@codesourcery.com> <693FC594-0F70-46AC-916D-C923F966ED1B@comcast.net> To: Andrew Stubbs X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-11/txt/msg02129.txt.bz2 On Nov 26, 2018, at 12:04 PM, Mike Stump wrote: >=20 > I'll Ok the signal one, if you prefer it over a dummy signal routine. Th= ough, would be nice for you to add signal if possible/reasonable. Oh, and my long term thinking on signal is that logically, it's fine to hav= e: #if __has_include("signal.h") signal(...); #endif and once we have a way to do that, then the processor specific test goes aw= ay. Over time, it does seem that we add more introspection capabilities to= the compiler, and introspection on what headers are there, is pretty basic= , so I can see that one day, I expect we'll get support for it. Indeed, I was looking at the laundry list of changes a port did recently (e= ffective target changes), and was wondering if all these would be better se= rved by the compiler setting up those values for introspection, and the tes= tsuite using those values from introspection. Hum, [ testing ] we already have it, welcome to the future I guess. Could = you please use the above form instead? I can't think of any down side to d= oing it this way.