On 07/07/2011 09:14 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 07/07/11 00:26, Janis Johnson wrote:
>> 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.
OK, I'll do that.
>> 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.
It passes everywhere, do you want to know when it stops passing for some
other multilib, or just care about armv6? If you only care about armv6
then the test should be limited to run with the default multilib instead
of having to muck around checking for incompatible options.
Janis
