From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=zKw2=6Z=bitrange.com=hp@sourceware.org>
Received: from arjuna.pair.com (arjuna.pair.com [209.68.5.131])
	by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41D833858CDB
	for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Wed,  1 Mar 2023 00:15:57 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 41D833858CDB
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=bitrange.com
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=bitrange.com
Received: by arjuna.pair.com (Postfix, from userid 3006)
	id 24C248A80D; Tue, 28 Feb 2023 19:15:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by arjuna.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2434D8A806;
	Tue, 28 Feb 2023 19:15:55 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2023 19:15:55 -0500 (EST)
From: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp@bitrange.com>
X-X-Sender: hp@arjuna.pair.com
To: Jonathan Yong <10walls@gmail.com>
cc: Gcc Patch List <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch] gcc.dg/overflow-warn-9.c: exclude from LLP64
In-Reply-To: <8c20aa3d-7702-89b3-9aa6-ccffa190f5d1@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.20.16.2302281915080.12614@arjuna.pair.com>
References: <4440cdad-cf9d-1ffc-029e-3bba162eb071@gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.20.16.2302272159040.46053@arjuna.pair.com> <8c20aa3d-7702-89b3-9aa6-ccffa190f5d1@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20.16 (BSF 172 2016-09-29)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-Scanned-By: mailmunge 3.11 on 209.68.5.131
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,KAM_NUMSUBJECT,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>

On Tue, 28 Feb 2023, Jonathan Yong wrote:

> On 2/28/23 03:06, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > 
> > On Mon, 27 Feb 2023, Jonathan Yong via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > 
> > > This test is for LP64 only, exclude LLP64 too.
> > > Patch OK?
> > 
> > I may be confused, but you're not making use of the "llp64"
> > effective target, there instead excluding/including lp64 /
> > ilp32 in sets that not obviously mean "exclude LLP64".
> > 
> > To wit, how is "! ilp32" -> "lp64" and "ilp32" -> "! lp64"
> > expressing "! llp64"?
> > 
> > brgds, H-P
> 
> Attached new version, hopefully it is clearer.
> 

Yes, thank you!  (Not an approver; not an approval.)

brgds, H-P