From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6475 invoked by alias); 9 Oct 2012 17:58:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 6466 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Oct 2012 17:58:02 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mailout03.t-online.de (HELO mailout03.t-online.de) (194.25.134.81) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 09 Oct 2012 17:57:57 +0000 Received: from fwd56.aul.t-online.de (fwd56.aul.t-online.de ) by mailout03.t-online.de with smtp id 1TLe43-0005mM-7a; Tue, 09 Oct 2012 19:57:55 +0200 Received: from [192.168.0.100] (rx6iSwZXZhVF+8Otm4+vla3rgKg-+G4zMh0THZL2ZmGWy96XGVDlZh5Cz8IlTacg+v@[93.218.185.64]) by fwd56.t-online.de with esmtp id 1TLe3v-1kYk6a0; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 19:57:47 +0200 Message-ID: <1349805465.21984.65.camel@yam-132-YW-E178-FTW> Subject: Re: [SH] PR 34777 - Add test case From: Oleg Endo To: Kaz Kojima Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 17:58:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20121009.183324.498911932.kkojima@rr.iij4u.or.jp> References: <1349737251.21984.55.camel@yam-132-YW-E178-FTW> <20121009.183324.498911932.kkojima@rr.iij4u.or.jp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 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: 2012-10/txt/msg00892.txt.bz2 On Tue, 2012-10-09 at 18:33 +0900, Kaz Kojima wrote: > Oleg Endo wrote: > > This adds the reduced test case as mentioned by Kaz in the PR to the > > test suite. > > Tested with > > make -k check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="compile.exp=pr34777* > > --target_board=sh-sim > > \{-m2/-ml,-m2/-mb,-m2a/-mb,-m4/-ml,-m4/-mb,-m4a/-ml,-m4a/-mb}" > > > > OK? > > It should be put into gcc.target/sh instead of gcc.c-torture/compile > and tested with -Os -fschedule-insns -fPIC -mprefergot, shouldn't it? > Uhm, yes, I forgot to add the -fschedule-insns and -mprefergot options. Regarding the -Os option, I think it's better to test this one at multiple optimization levels, just in case. I've looked through gcc.c-torture/compile and found some target specific test cases there, so I thought it would be OK to do the same :) Some targets also have their own torture subdir. If it's better, I could also create gcc.target/sh/torture. Cheers, Oleg