From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <libffi-discuss-return-1747-listarch-libffi-discuss=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 12992 invoked by alias); 25 Jun 2013 12:55:09 -0000
Mailing-List: contact libffi-discuss-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <libffi-discuss.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:libffi-discuss-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/libffi-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:libffi-discuss@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:libffi-discuss-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: libffi-discuss-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 12980 invoked by uid 89); 25 Jun 2013 12:55:09 -0000
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,TW_BF autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
Received: from service87.mimecast.com (HELO service87.mimecast.com) (91.220.42.44)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 12:55:07 +0000
Received: from cam-owa1.Emea.Arm.com (fw-tnat.cambridge.arm.com [217.140.96.21]) by service87.mimecast.com; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 13:55:03 +0100
Received: from e106375vm ([10.1.255.212]) by cam-owa1.Emea.Arm.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0);	 Tue, 25 Jun 2013 13:55:00 +0100
From: "James Greenhalgh" <james.greenhalgh@arm.com>
To: "James Greenhalgh" <James.Greenhalgh@arm.com>,	"'Anthony Green'" <green@moxielogic.com>
Cc: <libffi-discuss@sourceware.org>,	"Marcus Shawcroft" <Marcus.Shawcroft@arm.com>
References: <1365413805-5517-1-git-send-email-james.greenhalgh@arm.com> <CACxje5_Tp0an2rRwyUWKsqdE9vMOwDxfkSgGYTiankAH0bQLFQ@mail.gmail.com> <009101ce5c48$0c657720$25306560$@greenhalgh@arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <009101ce5c48$0c657720$25306560$@greenhalgh@arm.com>
Subject: RE: [libffi testsuite] Set -ffp-contract=off for libffi.call/many.c
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 12:55:00 -0000
Message-ID: <000001ce71a3$31a1fa70$94e5ef50$@greenhalgh@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MC-Unique: 113062513550306701
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-SW-Source: 2013/txt/msg00149.txt.bz2

Hi Anthony,

Any thoughts on this?

Regards,
James

> >   The problem with unqualified dg-options is that non-GCC compilers
> > will complain about them, and libffi currently supports compilers
> from
> > IBM, Oracle and Microsoft.  Could you please resubmit with the
> > appropriate target qualifier? Just look at other uses of dg-options.
> > (to answer your other question, either a patch email or pull request
> > would be fine)
>=20
> Hi Anthony,
>=20
> I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you are asking me to do. Looking at
> other test cases I see, for example:
>=20
> testsuite/libffi.call/huge_struct.c:/* { dg-options -Wformat=3D0 { target
moxie*-*-elf } } */
>=20
> But my understanding is that this restricts adding the option to
> moxie*-*-elf targets rather than compilers.
>=20
> I think to implement what you are asking I would want something like
>=20
> /* { dg-options -ffp-contract=3Doff { compiler *gcc* } } */
>=20
> As best as I understand it, any GCC target which can contract
> fused multiply adds will require this change, which would require
> me to write:
>=20
> /* { dg-options -ffp-contract=3Doff { target *-*-* } } */
>=20
> But then I think I have opened myself up to failing with other
> compilers
> again.
>=20
> Have I completely misunderstood what you are requesting? Could you
> point me towards some other examples which achieve what I want?
>=20
> Thanks,
> James