From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14057 invoked by alias); 24 Jun 2011 13:18:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 14048 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Jun 2011 13:18:51 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,TW_TB X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-wy0-f175.google.com (HELO mail-wy0-f175.google.com) (74.125.82.175) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 13:18:38 +0000 Received: by wyb34 with SMTP id 34so2257883wyb.20 for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 06:18:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.177.1 with SMTP id c1mr689532wem.17.1308921516952; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 06:18:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.32.37] (fw-lnat.cambridge.arm.com [217.140.96.63]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d19sm2005353wbh.42.2011.06.24.06.18.35 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 24 Jun 2011 06:18:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E048EB5.3040207@linaro.org> Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 13:38:00 -0000 From: Ramana Radhakrishnan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110424 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Janis Johnson CC: "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: [testsuite] ARM test pr42093.c: thumb2 or thumb1 References: <4E03DD02.6010706@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <4E03DD02.6010706@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed 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: 2011-06/txt/msg01870.txt.bz2 On 24/06/11 01:40, Janis Johnson wrote: > Test gcc.target/arm/pr42093.c, added by Ramana, requires support for > arm_thumb2 but fails for those targets. The patch for which it was > added modified support for thumb1. Should the test instead require > arm_thumb1_ok, as in this patch? No this is for a Thumb2 defect so the test is valid for Thumb2 - we shouldn't be generating a tbb / tbh with signed offsets and that's what was happening there. This test I think ends up being fragile because the generation of tbb / tbh depends on how the blocks have been laid out . It would be interesting to try and get a test that works reliably in T2 . cheers Ramana > > Janis