From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 79561 invoked by alias); 22 Dec 2015 19:12:26 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 79542 invoked by uid 89); 22 Dec 2015 19:12:25 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 22 Dec 2015 19:12:25 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F783693D5; Tue, 22 Dec 2015 19:12:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn-113-106.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.106]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id tBMJCM89017568; Tue, 22 Dec 2015 14:12:23 -0500 Subject: Re: [Patch testsuite] Skip gcc.dg/ifcvt-4.c for targets on which it may not work To: "Richard Earnshaw (lists)" , James Greenhalgh , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org References: <20151218095459.GA18260@arm.com> <56785522.1010108@redhat.com> <56793306.8030505@arm.com> Cc: ramana.radhakrishnan@arm.com From: Jeff Law Message-ID: <5679A096.8050007@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 19:12:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56793306.8030505@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-12/txt/msg02056.txt.bz2 On 12/22/2015 04:24 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: > > The bigger problem here is that branch costs are a property of a > specific CPU, not the target architecture. So deciding whether or not > we should skip this test (and perhaps others like it) is impossible > given that we can't know what the default CPU for the compiler is (and > even if we did know, maintaining such a list would be almost impossible). True, but you still get a reasonable set of targets where the test passes vs fails -- not all the targets have as many variants as ARM :-) I'd certainly agree that covering all the subtargets and then keeping those lists accurate sounds like a lot of make-work. jeff