From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 44377 invoked by alias); 12 Jun 2017 10:38:28 -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 43433 invoked by uid 89); 12 Jun 2017 10:38:27 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: gate.crashing.org Received: from gate.crashing.org (HELO gate.crashing.org) (63.228.1.57) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 10:38:25 +0000 Received: from gate.crashing.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v5CAcQ4U004174; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 05:38:26 -0500 Received: (from segher@localhost) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id v5CAcQhp004171; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 05:38:26 -0500 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 10:38:00 -0000 From: Segher Boessenkool To: Ian Lance Taylor Cc: gcc-patches Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix new split-1.c testcase Message-ID: <20170612103826.GC12760@gate.crashing.org> References: <5fcdb23b55b49dffea1b6c1f1992e7527dfd5183.1497180698.git.segher@kernel.crashing.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-06/txt/msg00767.txt.bz2 On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 07:38:04PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 4:40 AM, Segher Boessenkool > wrote: > > > > The new split-1.c testcase fails on targets that do not support split > > stack (like 32-bit PowerPC Linux). This patch fixes it by only running > > the testcase if split stack is supported. It also adds the reorder > > flag to the options, so that the test actually tests what it says it > > tests. > > > > Is this okay for trunk? > > Whoops, sorry about that. > > Adding dg-require-effective-target split_stack is fine. Adding an > explicit -freorder-blocks-and-partition option is not. Adding the > explicit option will cause the test to fail when using gold, as the > two options are not compatible. The point of the test is to test that > using -fsplit-stack disables the default enabling of > -freorder-blocks-and-partition. Ah, I see. Could you change the comment then, to say what we are really testing? > > /* Test case that we don't get a link-time error when using > > -fsplit-stack with -freorder-blocks-and-partition. */ > > /* { dg-require-effective-target freorder } */ And this line isn't required, in that case -- removing it is less confusing and allows the test to run in more places ;-) [ Paul Hua sent a patch adding split_stack already, it was OKed, but it is not committed yet, fwiw ]. Segher