From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14786 invoked by alias); 14 Feb 2014 08:01:17 -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 14712 invoked by uid 89); 14 Feb 2014 08:01:16 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: qmta09.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net Received: from qmta09.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (HELO qmta09.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net) (76.96.30.96) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 08:01:14 +0000 Received: from omta01.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.11]) by qmta09.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id S80e1n0040EPchoA981Dx6; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 08:01:13 +0000 Received: from [10.0.0.2] ([24.4.193.8]) by omta01.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id S81B1n00F0BKwT48M81BlD; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 08:01:12 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) Subject: Re: [Patch, testsuite]: Allow MicroBlaze .weakext pattern in regex match From: Mike Stump In-Reply-To: <2f748e41-9d19-4217-8bb8-58ee8726f3ae@VA3EHSMHS046.ehs.local> Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 08:01:00 -0000 Cc: "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" , "Michael Eager (eager@eagerm.com)" , Vidhumouli Hunsigida , Nagaraju Mekala , John Williams , Edgar Iglesias Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <2f748e41-9d19-4217-8bb8-58ee8726f3ae@VA3EHSMHS046.ehs.local> To: David Holsgrove X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-02/txt/msg00886.txt.bz2 On Feb 13, 2014, at 10:07 PM, David Holsgrove = wrote: > I've attached a patch to extend the regex pattern to include optional 'ex= t' at the end of > '.weak' to match the MicroBlaze weak label '.weakext' in two of the g++ t= est cases. I don=92t feel strongly either way. I'd like think weak(_definition)?(ext)= ?=85.. is good enough, as this test doesn=92t much care beyond that. spec34 does: { dg-final { scan-assembler ".weak(_definition)?\[\t \]*_?_Z2f2IiEvT_=94 for example. Which I think is fairly readable/maintainable. Let=92s give others that might disagree with me an opportunity to do so=85 = I=92m happy to defer to anyone that has a stronger opinion than mine. If = no one steps forward, I=92ll ok either way you want to go. Wearing my hat as darwin/testsuite maintainer. :-)