From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 67264 invoked by alias); 2 May 2016 21:28:25 -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 67240 invoked by uid 89); 2 May 2016 21:28:25 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=H*M:120, gcc-testresults, gcctestresults, Hx-languages-length:697 X-HELO: mailout01.t-online.de Received: from mailout01.t-online.de (HELO mailout01.t-online.de) (194.25.134.80) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 02 May 2016 21:28:14 +0000 Received: from fwd18.aul.t-online.de (fwd18.aul.t-online.de [172.20.26.244]) by mailout01.t-online.de (Postfix) with SMTP id 902713551B4; Mon, 2 May 2016 23:28:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.0.16] (SsYq-GZewhU9sUw3E+hLUm-UocyuMpZU04cv02GmNoGN+jhszUJw5gcCFZkxcUTZuk@[115.165.93.200]) by fwd18.t-online.de with (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) esmtp id 1axLNv-0yiEUa0; Mon, 2 May 2016 23:28:07 +0200 Message-ID: <1462224483.31604.120.camel@t-online.de> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix spec-options.c test case From: Oleg Endo To: Bernd Schmidt , Bernd Edlinger , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" Cc: Andreas Krebbel , Dominik Vogt , Kaz Kojima Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 21:28:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <57276071.1010206@redhat.com> References: <57272B41.8080703@redhat.com> <57276071.1010206@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-05/txt/msg00137.txt.bz2 On Mon, 2016-05-02 at 16:13 +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 05/02/2016 03:43 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > > Yes, you are right. Only the original use-case seems to be > > sh-superh-elf specific. But there are also spec strings > > that are always available. I think adding -DFOO to > > "cpp_unique_options" will work on any target, and make the > > test case even more useful. > > > > > > So is the updated patch OK? > > If that passes testing on non-sh, yes. It seems that test case doesn't work on sh4-linux. There's a new failure: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2016-05/msg00089.html FAIL: gcc.dg/spec-options.c execution test Cheers, Oleg