On 07/07/11 00:26, Janis Johnson wrote:
> For three tests in gcc.target/arm that don't depend on processor-specific
> behavior, don't specify the -march option. This makes dg-prune-output
> for warnings about conflicts unnecessary, so remove it.
>
> Two of these tests are for internal compiler errors that showed up with
> particular values of -march. I think it's fine to test them with normal
> multilibs, some of which will use those -march values, and others of
> which could trigger a closely-related ICE.
>
> If there'a a desire to use specific options in a test, I'd prefer to see
> it done in a copy of the test that is skipped for all multilibs but the
> default.
>
> OK for trunk, and for 4.6 after a few days?
>
>
> gcc-20110706-3
>
>
> 2011-07-06 Janis Johnson <[email protected]>
>
> * gcc.target/arm/pr41679.c: Remove -march options and unneeded
> dg-prune-output.
> * gcc.target/arm/pr46883.c: Likewise.
> * gcc.target/arm/xor-and.c: Likewise.
>
> Index: gcc.target/arm/pr41679.c
I think this should just be moved to gcc.c-torture/compile. There
doesn't seem to be anything processor-specific here.
> Index: gcc.target/arm/pr46883.c
Likewise.
> Index: gcc.target/arm/xor-and.c
> ===================================================================
> --- gcc.target/arm/xor-and.c (revision 175921)
> +++ gcc.target/arm/xor-and.c (working copy)
> @@ -1,6 +1,5 @@
> /* { dg-do compile } */
> -/* { dg-options "-O -march=armv6" } */
> -/* { dg-prune-output "switch .* conflicts with" } */
> +/* { dg-options "-O" } */
>
> unsigned short foo (unsigned short x)
> {
The purpose of this test seems to be to ensure that when compiling for
v6 we don't get particular instructions. Removing the -march flag means
we won't normally test this in the way intended (ie unless the multilibs
explicitly test v6). This is one of those cases where I think the
intention really is to force one particular instruction set.
R.
