From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12053 invoked by alias); 8 Jun 2011 19:30:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 12043 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Jun 2011 19:30:32 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RFC_ABUSE_POST,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from qmta12.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (HELO qmta12.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net) (76.96.59.227) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 08 Jun 2011 19:30:18 +0000 Received: from omta23.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.74]) by qmta12.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id tX3h1g0021c6gX85CXWJJT; Wed, 08 Jun 2011 19:30:18 +0000 Received: from up.mrs.kithrup.com ([24.4.193.8]) by omta23.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id tXWG1g01M0BKwT43jXWHXb; Wed, 08 Jun 2011 19:30:18 +0000 Subject: Re: [testsuite] skip ARM tests with conflicting options Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Mike Stump In-Reply-To: <4DEF953B.7050801@codesourcery.com> Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2011 19:34:00 -0000 Cc: Richard Earnshaw , "Joseph S. Myers" , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <8CE2E40D-64A2-4A5D-9351-BFFEC5438424@comcast.net> References: <4DEE8FE7.50001@codesourcery.com> <4DEEB332.2070706@codesourcery.com> <4DEEDAF0.6090100@codesourcery.com> <4DEF516C.7060703@arm.com> <4DEF953B.7050801@codesourcery.com> To: Janis Johnson 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: 2011-06/txt/msg00669.txt.bz2 On Jun 8, 2011, at 8:28 AM, Janis Johnson wrote: > The big question is whether such a test should be run for all multilibs > that might possibly pass the test, or only for default and for mulitlibs > that provide the same options. Here, reasonable people may disagree. I suspect in the end, we'll have bot= h solutions, and then individual testcases will make their own decision. A= collection of testcases will tend to follow the same convention... So, fo= r objective-c, we face the same sort of issue, and we do what we do, and th= at isn't necessarily going to match exactly what for example the gcc.arm do= es, nor I suspect are we going to change just because gcc.arm changes. I t= hink it makes sense to cache as much as possible and skip conflicts. Takin= g off my testsuite maintainer hat, I think soft conflicts with defaults sho= uld mean we run it, and punch in the options we want. If there is somethin= g that prohibits that from working (hard conflict), it should be skipped. = Feel free to ignore this, as I don't know that this is the best answer. I'd like to think that dg-skip-if and dg-require-effective-target and gener= al target selection is beefy enough to do everything we need it to, or can = be made to.