On Wed, 2011-06-08 at 22:19 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 01:16:26PM -0700, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-06-08 at 22:08 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 01:03:53PM -0700, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> > > > 2011-06-08 Steve Ellcey <s...@cup.hp.com>
> > > >
> > > > PR middle-end/49191
> > > > * lib/target-supports.exp
> > > > (check_effective_target_strict_align): New.
> > > > * gcc.dg/memcpy-3.c: Add dg-require-effective-target
> > > > strict_align.
> > >
> > > Isn't the test backwards, i.e. doesn't
> > > { dg-require-effective-target strict_align }
> > > actually mean !STRICT_ALIGNMENT?
> >
> > You are right. What do you think I should do, reverse the test or just
> > rename it? I would be inclined to just rename it, maybe:
> >
> > dg-require-effective-target non_strict_align
>
> Yeah, either that, or reverse the test and then
> { dg-do run { target { !strict_align } } } */
> (if that is the right syntax).
>
> Jakub
Renaming it seems simpler. If we reverse the test, I can't just return
the result of check_no_compiler_messages, I need to save the result and
reverse the return value. Then in the actual tests we can't use
dg-require-effective-target but need to modify the dg-do line to do the
check and it will probably always include the '!' to (re-)negate the
check. It can be done but renaming the test seems a lot simpler.
Steve Ellcey
s...@cup.hp.com
