From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19491 invoked by alias); 7 Jul 2011 16:14:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 19429 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Jul 2011 16:14:24 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from service87.mimecast.com (HELO service87.mimecast.com) (94.185.240.25) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with SMTP; Thu, 07 Jul 2011 16:14:11 +0000 Received: from cam-owa1.Emea.Arm.com (fw-tnat.cambridge.arm.com [217.140.96.21]) by service87.mimecast.com; Thu, 07 Jul 2011 17:14:08 +0100 Received: from [10.1.67.34] ([10.1.255.212]) by cam-owa1.Emea.Arm.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Thu, 7 Jul 2011 17:14:06 +0100 Message-ID: <4E15DB4D.1030908@arm.com> Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 16:14:00 -0000 From: Richard Earnshaw User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-GB; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Janis Johnson CC: "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: [testsuite] arm tests: remove -march= and dg-prune-output from 3 tests References: <4E14EF43.2070205@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <4E14EF43.2070205@codesourcery.com> X-MC-Unique: 111070717140800201 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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/msg00512.txt.bz2 On 07/07/11 00:26, Janis Johnson wrote: > For three tests in gcc.target/arm that don't depend on processor-specific > behavior, don't specify the -march option. This makes dg-prune-output > for warnings about conflicts unnecessary, so remove it. >=20 > Two of these tests are for internal compiler errors that showed up with > particular values of -march. I think it's fine to test them with normal > multilibs, some of which will use those -march values, and others of > which could trigger a closely-related ICE. >=20 > If there'a a desire to use specific options in a test, I'd prefer to see > it done in a copy of the test that is skipped for all multilibs but the > default. >=20 > OK for trunk, and for 4.6 after a few days? >=20 >=20 > gcc-20110706-3 >=20 >=20 > 2011-07-06 Janis Johnson >=20 > * gcc.target/arm/pr41679.c: Remove -march options and unneeded > dg-prune-output. > * gcc.target/arm/pr46883.c: Likewise. > * gcc.target/arm/xor-and.c: Likewise. >=20 > Index: gcc.target/arm/pr41679.c I think this should just be moved to gcc.c-torture/compile. There doesn't seem to be anything processor-specific here. > Index: gcc.target/arm/pr46883.c Likewise. > Index: gcc.target/arm/xor-and.c > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > --- gcc.target/arm/xor-and.c (revision 175921) > +++ gcc.target/arm/xor-and.c (working copy) > @@ -1,6 +1,5 @@ > /* { dg-do compile } */ > -/* { dg-options "-O -march=3Darmv6" } */ > -/* { dg-prune-output "switch .* conflicts with" } */ > +/* { dg-options "-O" } */ >=20=20 > unsigned short foo (unsigned short x) > { The purpose of this test seems to be to ensure that when compiling for v6 we don't get particular instructions. Removing the -march flag means we won't normally test this in the way intended (ie unless the multilibs explicitly test v6). This is one of those cases where I think the intention really is to force one particular instruction set. R.