From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 34054 invoked by alias); 22 Mar 2016 12:14:44 -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 34028 invoked by uid 89); 22 Mar 2016 12:14:43 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=puzzled 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 Mar 2016 12:14:42 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6A0690E71; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 12:14:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn1-7-65.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.7.65]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u2MCEdTE009844; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 08:14:39 -0400 Subject: Re: Fix 70278 (LRA split_regs followup patch) To: Christophe Lyon , Jeff Law References: <56EBF12B.40701@t-online.de> <56EBF3B9.5050005@redhat.com> <56EC322E.5080900@redhat.com> Cc: GCC Patches , Vladimir Makarov From: Bernd Schmidt Message-ID: <56F1372E.80101@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 12:39:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-03/txt/msg01241.txt.bz2 On 03/22/2016 10:24 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote: > > The ARM test isn't sufficiently protected against non-compliant configurations, > and fails if GCC is configured for arm*linux-gnueabihf for instance > (see http://people.linaro.org/~christophe.lyon/cross-validation/gcc/trunk/234342/report-build-info.html) > > The attached small patch fixes that by requiring arm_arch_v4t_multilib > effective target. > > I used arm_arch_v4t_multilib instead of arm_arch_v4t because, as I > reported a long time ago > the later does not complain in some unsupported configuration because > the sample effective > target test does not contain actual code. In particular it's not > sufficient to reject thumb-1 with > hard-float. > > OK? No objections from me, but I copied all this from the existing testcase ftest-armv4t-thumb.c, so I'm puzzled why that one doesn't fail. Bernd