On 07/01/2011 02:02 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > On 24/06/11 14:18, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: >> On 24/06/11 01:40, Janis Johnson wrote: >>> Test gcc.target/arm/pr42093.c, added by Ramana, requires support for >>> arm_thumb2 but fails for those targets. The patch for which it was >>> added modified support for thumb1. Should the test instead require >>> arm_thumb1_ok, as in this patch? >> >> No this is for a Thumb2 defect so the test is valid for Thumb2 - we >> shouldn't be generating a tbb / tbh with signed offsets and that's what >> was happening there. >> >> This test I think ends up being fragile because the generation of tbb / >> tbh depends on how the blocks have been laid out . It would be >> interesting to try and get a test that works reliably in T2 . >> >> cheers >> Ramana >> >>> >>> Janis >> >> >> > Perhaps -fno-reorder-blocks could be used to make it less fragile. > > R. >
It passes for all thumb2 targets with that option. Janis
