On 14 April 2015 at 10:19, Ramana Radhakrishnan
<ramana....@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Yvan Roux <yvan.r...@linaro.org> wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> On 7 April 2015 at 22:02, Yvan Roux <yvan.r...@linaro.org> wrote:
>>> On 7 April 2015 at 21:33, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 09:28:51PM +0200, Yvan Roux wrote:
>>>>> validation is ongoing, but here is my attempt to add this testcase,
>>>>> does it look correct (it's the first time I use that kind of include
>>>>> in testsuite)
>>>>
>>>> The intent is that we have a testcase for all targets at various
>>>> optimization levels, plus one with specific options for the particular
>>>> target.
>>>> If you get at least one FAIL with this patch with Vlad's patch reverted and
>>>> no FAILs with that patch, the patch is ok for trunk with the obvious
>>>> ChangeLog entry.
>>
>> As this testcase needs to be executed, we can have some conflict at
>> link time, depending on how the libs were compiled. Here is what I've
>> for the moment, let me know if it's ok and/or if you have suggestion
>> on how to improve it.
>>
>> - armv6 doesn't support the hard-float ABI in Thumb mode, I disable
>> the testcase with this directive, but not sure it's the best way:
>> { dg-skip-if "avoid conflicting multilib options" { *-*-*eabihf } {
>> "*" } { "" } }ot
>>
>> - The original problem was reported on armv6-m arch. but is not
>> related to the M profile, if we stick to armv6-m the link will fail on
>> compiler which default to the -A profile. As my guess is that -A
>> profile is more widely tested, I changed the -march flag to armv6. Do
>> you think it's ok ?
>
> IMO there are enough folks who test M profile. I'd drop all the arch
> specific options and just apply the patch.
The issue is more related to armv6 than M profile, but if it is widely
tested as well I can just commit the torture test if it's ok for
Jakub.
Thanks,
Yvan
> Thanks,
> Ramana
>
>>
>> With the attached patch there is only 1 FAIL before Vlad's patch on
>> the execution of the test and they all PASS when testing
>> arm-linux-gnueabi, and the target test is UNSUPPORTED when test
>> arm-linux-gnueabihf.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Yvan
>>
>> 2105-04-09 Yvan Roux <yvan.r...@linaro.org>
>>
>> PR target/65648
>> * gcc.c-torture/execute/pr65648.c: New test.
>> * gcc.target/arm/pr65648.c: New test.
