From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14611 invoked by alias); 4 Aug 2010 12:52:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 14602 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Aug 2010 12:52:56 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com (HELO cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com) (217.140.96.50) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 04 Aug 2010 12:52:49 +0000 Received: from cam-owa1.Emea.Arm.com (cam-owa1.emea.arm.com [10.1.255.62]) by cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id o74CqUF9002980; Wed, 4 Aug 2010 13:52:30 +0100 (BST) Received: from [10.1.66.29] ([10.1.255.212]) by cam-owa1.Emea.Arm.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Wed, 4 Aug 2010 13:52:44 +0100 Subject: Re: [PATCH, ARM] Fix PR45094 From: Ramana Radhakrishnan Reply-To: ramana.radhakrishnan@arm.com To: Yao Qi Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20100804041811.GA18664@qiyaows> References: <20100801083614.GA2569@qiyaows> <20100801145827.GB2569@qiyaows> <20100802003814.GA19224@caradoc.them.org> <20100803132852.GA15793@qiyaows> <20100804041811.GA18664@qiyaows> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 12:52:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1280926363.6869.41.camel@e102325-lin.cambridge.arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2010-08/txt/msg00270.txt.bz2 > > No - this test is still not ok. It is not necessary that all > > arm-linux-gnueabi targets have Neon. Think about the Tegra2 where > > there is no Neon unit where this test will fail. Thus if you really > > need the neon options (out of curiosity why?) please add the following > > to the test. > > > > /* { dg-require-effective-target arm_neon_hw } */ > > Add /* { dg-require-effective-target arm_neon_hw } */ into the test > as you suggested here. Re-create patch against mainline trunk, and > tested. OK to apply? Yes this looks much better - thanks. This should go in under the "obvious" rule but please wait for a backend maintainer to comment. cheers Ramana