On 01/07/11 20:56, Janis Johnson wrote: > 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 > > >
Ok, so consider a patch to use that option pre-approved. R.
