From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-295200-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 3951 invoked by alias); 24 Jun 2011 15:07:00 -0000
Received: (qmail 3933 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Jun 2011 15:07:00 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 15:06:44 +0000
Received: (qmail 7603 invoked from network); 24 Jun 2011 15:06:44 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.5?) (janisjo@127.0.0.2)  by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 24 Jun 2011 15:06:44 -0000
Message-ID: <4E04A8A4.2010601@codesourcery.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 15:24:00 -0000
From: Janis Johnson <janisjo@codesourcery.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110424 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana.radhakrishnan@linaro.org>
CC: Tom de Vries <vries@codesourcery.com>,  "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [testsuite] ARM ivopts tests: skip for no thumb support
References: <4E03B1D1.8090604@codesourcery.com>	<BANLkTiniSm5+1tXzt5PzpSWjqeC8tu0HiA@mail.gmail.com>	<4E03B914.1070708@codesourcery.com>	<4E046701.4090306@codesourcery.com>	<4E04A6B9.4090509@codesourcery.com> <BANLkTimK-pkPqJZ2VdJyyOo6jQNCCStOSQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimK-pkPqJZ2VdJyyOo6jQNCCStOSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-06/txt/msg01885.txt.bz2

On 06/24/2011 08:03 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
>>> I introduced 2 new arm-related effective targets to accomplish this.
>>> - arm_thumb2: Tests if we're compiling for thumb2.
>>> - arm_nothumb: Tests if we're not compiling for any thumb.
>>> I don't know how to get the same effect with the existing arm-related effective
>>> targets.
>>
>> That looks good to me, and those effective targets will be very useful.
> 
> How is this different from arm_thumb2_ok and !arm_thumb2_ok ?
> 
> If l Iook at arm_thumb2 that appears to be identical to what
> arm_thumb2_ok does.
> 
> proc check_effective_target_arm_thumb2_ok { } {
>     return [check_no_compiler_messages arm_thumb2_ok assembly {
>         #if !defined(__thumb2__)
>         #error FOO
>         #endif
>     } "-mthumb"]        <======= HERE
> }
> 
> +# Return 1 is this is an ARM target where is Thumb-2 used.
> +
> +proc check_effective_target_arm_thumb2 { } {
> +    return [check_no_compiler_messages arm_thumb2 assembly {
> +	#if !defined(__thumb2__)
> +	#error FOO
> +	#endif
> +    } ""]
> +}
> +
> 
> Or am I missing something ?
> 
> Ramana

arm_thumb_ok and arm_thumb2_ok check to see if the target will be as expected
when compiling with -mthumb, and the tests that use it add -mthumb to the
options.  The new ones check to see if the target is thumb with current
multilib options, and it can safely be used for dg-final.

Janis

Janis