https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59833
--- Comment #9 from Aurelien Jarno <aurelien at aurel32 dot net> --- (In reply to ramana.radhakrishnan from comment #8) > On 14/07/16 12:15, aurelien at aurel32 dot net wrote: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59833 > > > > --- Comment #7 from Aurelien Jarno <aurelien at aurel32 dot net> --- > > (In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #6) > >> (In reply to Aurelien Jarno from comment #5) > >>> (In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #4) > >>>> Need to apply Aurelien's patch - looks like that's slipped through the > >>>> cracks. > >>> > >>> What was missing to the patch was a testcase which compiles on all > >>> platform. > >>> This has happened recently, as part of the testcase for PR61441. I > >>> therefore > >>> guess this patch can now be applied. > >> > >> Do you mind pinging it after another round of testing ? > >> > > > > I have just done a another round on testing on trunk: > > - The patch is still necessary. > > - The patch still applies, but with fuzz. I'll resend an update patch. > > - The patch still works as expected. > > - The testcase for PR61441 does not seems to work for this bug as it is > > compiled with -O1. GCC 6 does constant propagation and the resulting binary > > do > > not call aeabi_f2d. With GCC 5 or with -O0 the testcase also work for his > > bug. > > Is there a way to specify that a test should run with both -O0 and -O1? That > > would avoid writing an almost identical testcase. > > An option might be to move the test into gcc.c-torture/execute and then it > will torture over all optimization levels and add the option needed with > dg-additional-options ? Ok, in that case, i'll add a patch specific for this bug. I am currently doing a test rebuild, I'll send a new version of the patch in the next days. Aurelien
