> In the meantime, I tried to not mark "long long" as unsupported, with > similar results. > > Without "no_long_long" there are more 32 tests that fail, but less 556 > tests are marked as unsupported. Which means that 64 bit "long long"'s > are mostly supported in fact. > > The question is: are "long long"'s officially supported? Should we be > running the tests that use them? > > BTW: 64 bit long long is really hard for a 8 bit microcontroller. At > least one of the tests (with -O0 optimization) was initially failing > from timeout, which means that it was taking more than 500 million > cycles to execute. Increasing the timeout to 2 billion cycles solved the > problem, though. >
Well today I have found out why this could be. I am testing a new version of the clz fixes and I also implemented some DI versions (DI = double int = 64 bit in gcc's internal terms). To my surprise some options did not changed a thing in cpu cycles, while the program got much shorter... So I took another look at it, and guess what... The stack usage was to much, so that it was now pushing it values into I/O memory including the special exit code memory. The program now exited successful on a "push r15" :D Can you make avrtest check on stack overflow? Wouter _______________________________________________ AVR-GCC-list mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-gcc-list
