From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30021 invoked by alias); 7 Jul 2011 16:30:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 29992 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Jul 2011 16:30:36 -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; Thu, 07 Jul 2011 16:30:21 +0000 Received: (qmail 14786 invoked from network); 7 Jul 2011 16:30:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.5?) (janisjo@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 7 Jul 2011 16:30:21 -0000 Message-ID: <4E15DF33.90500@codesourcery.com> Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 16:44:00 -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: "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: [testsuite] arm tests: remove -march= and dg-prune-output from 3 tests References: <4E14EF43.2070205@codesourcery.com> <4E15DB4D.1030908@arm.com> In-Reply-To: <4E15DB4D.1030908@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/msg00518.txt.bz2 On 07/07/2011 09:14 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > On 07/07/11 00:26, Janis Johnson wrote: >> 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. OK, I'll do that. >> Index: gcc.target/arm/xor-and.c >> =================================================================== >> --- 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=armv6" } */ >> -/* { dg-prune-output "switch .* conflicts with" } */ >> +/* { dg-options "-O" } */ >> >> 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. It passes everywhere, do you want to know when it stops passing for some other multilib, or just care about armv6? If you only care about armv6 then the test should be limited to run with the default multilib instead of having to muck around checking for incompatible options. Janis