Hi! On 2023-09-05T15:28:20+0100, Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches wrote: > Thomas Schwinge writes: >> On 2023-09-04T23:05:05+0200, I wrote: >>> On 2019-07-16T15:04:49+0100, Richard Sandiford wrote: >>>> This patch therefore adds a new check-function-bodies dg-final test >> >>>> The regexps in parse_function_bodies are fairly general, but might >>>> still need to be extended in future for targets like Darwin or AIX. >>> >>> ..., or nvptx. [...] >> Any comments before I push the attached >> "testsuite: Port 'check-function-bodies' to nvptx"? > LGTM. Just a minor comment: >> --- a/gcc/doc/sourcebuild.texi >> +++ b/gcc/doc/sourcebuild.texi >> @@ -3327,9 +3327,12 @@ The first line of the expected output for a function @var{fn} has the form: >> Subsequent lines of the expected output also start with @var{prefix}. >> In both cases, whitespace after @var{prefix} is not significant. >> >> -The test discards assembly directives such as @code{.cfi_startproc} >> -and local label definitions such as @code{.LFB0} from the compiler's >> -assembly output. It then matches the result against the expected >> +Depending on the configuration (see >> +@code{gcc/testsuite/lib/scanasm.exp:configure_check-function-bodies}), > > I can imagine such a long string wouldn't format well in the output. > How about: @code{configure_check-function-bodies} in > @filename{gcc/testsuite/lib/scanasm.exp}? Thanks, good suggestion. Also, I've backed out the 'gcc.target/nvptx/abort.c' change to use 'check-function-bodies', leaving that for a later commit to translate more of 'gcc.target/nvptx/[...]'. Pushed to master branch commit 50410234a3d2e1b85203d97fe6f65fd9d1f0e100 "testsuite: Port 'check-function-bodies' to nvptx", see attached. Grüße Thomas ----------------- Siemens Electronic Design Automation GmbH; Anschrift: Arnulfstraße 201, 80634 München; Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung; Geschäftsführer: Thomas Heurung, Frank Thürauf; Sitz der Gesellschaft: München; Registergericht München, HRB 106955