From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 103987 invoked by alias); 13 Dec 2017 08:49:21 -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 103974 invoked by uid 89); 13 Dec 2017 08:49:20 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=HX-Received:Wed, Hx-languages-length:921 X-HELO: mail-vk0-f43.google.com Received: from mail-vk0-f43.google.com (HELO mail-vk0-f43.google.com) (209.85.213.43) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 08:49:19 +0000 Received: by mail-vk0-f43.google.com with SMTP id f199so946573vka.8 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 00:49:19 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=E5mTRIPlgXvBP6zdQrqF+xt2GFfJy/ay3cXpRcPJUgY=; b=km9wHTsRJYDuZOSv+TjSZ/IEx3L8K+8Eq/xH2PqRSzroOndxo/asITyhKFtgxmnUXb ntcSJxm6MxOTkHDapQrxh1CXvsaRaQDxayxy72e9ZO4TWLvcFSdVXz6imcPLWkX3ljPv ysCU9KrhxYskiv26BbUU4Q93+hmbBSjrimkMNwfPu1Isd583jNKD9+mfwsmiPcoc6zXo Ne/a+VyokJaQuD8K/aYi9yrgxUeVq0J2Htj6EnLAj5SZ223p4Swa37wQf64HQAJtbplh +j53X+AfeRO9gt7fyqwXUvOH70ykO6SxWs7Q05ppkoDN0ypo+dVy16uLmzHyWxflufG1 L/iQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mLBLHBQa4SKKPiXQV7/duev2PTUT4No3Lm0ZznWhnmmLZu3Jbec vbeqjeiWNuhMEBnKjOnny8iQYwHovPMgGi59/3ZT+g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBot2VOTyhgJZ7bjic6eEYFmTzQQMKJUVgSxrgsQCAxfFQ7bCu3TPY3xsBZpVGgYleiZCIVPy+yR9Zt8d8BEpqwE= X-Received: by 10.31.125.142 with SMTP id y136mr4919141vkc.79.1513154957283; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 00:49:17 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.103.120.208 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 00:49:15 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20171212172909.GA12902@arm.com> References: <20171212172909.GA12902@arm.com> From: Christophe Lyon Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 08:49:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH][GCC][ARM] Fix fragile arm fpu attribute tests. To: Tamar Christina Cc: "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" , nd , Ramana Radhakrishnan , Richard Earnshaw , nick clifton , Kyrylo Tkachov Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-12/txt/msg00798.txt.bz2 On 12 December 2017 at 18:29, Tamar Christina wrote: > Hi All, > > The previous test made use of arm_neon.h which made the whole test > rather fragile and only applicable to some of the arm targets. > > So instead I make use of different fpus now to test the generation of > fmla instructions. The actual instruction itself is not tested as all > we care about if that the proper .fpu directives are generated. > > Regtested on arm-none-eabi and arm-none-linux-gnueabihf > with no regressions. > > Ok for trunk? > > > gcc/testsuite/ > 2017-12-12 Tamar Christina > > PR target/82641 > * gcc.target/arm/pragma_fpu_attribute.c: New. > * gcc.target/arm/pragma_fpu_attribute_2.c: New. > Sorry, it seems your patch does not apply against ToT, and the ChangeLog looks incorrect (these are not new files) Christophe