From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29372 invoked by alias); 1 Jul 2011 19:57:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 29362 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Jul 2011 19:57:04 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,TW_TB,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, 01 Jul 2011 19:56:51 +0000 Received: (qmail 11066 invoked from network); 1 Jul 2011 19:56:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.5?) (janisjo@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 1 Jul 2011 19:56:50 -0000 Message-ID: <4E0E2687.7080106@codesourcery.com> Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 19:57:00 -0000 From: Janis Johnson 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: Richard Earnshaw CC: Ramana Radhakrishnan , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: [testsuite] ARM test pr42093.c: thumb2 or thumb1 References: <4E03DD02.6010706@codesourcery.com> <4E048EB5.3040207@linaro.org> <4E0D8D36.1020302@arm.com> In-Reply-To: <4E0D8D36.1020302@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 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: 2011-07/txt/msg00087.txt.bz2 On 07/01/2011 02:02 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > On 24/06/11 14:18, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: >> 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 >> >> >> > Perhaps -fno-reorder-blocks could be used to make it less fragile. > > R. > It passes for all thumb2 targets with that option. Janis