Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: > On 26 September 2011 15:24, Ulrich Weigand <uweig...@de.ibm.com> wrote: > > Is this sufficient, or should I test any other set of options as well? > > Could you run one set of tests with neon ?
Sorry for the delay, but I had to switch to my IGEP board for Neon support, and that's a bit slow ... In any case, I've now completed testing the patch with Neon with no regressions. > > Just to clarify: in the presence of the other options that are already > > in dg-options, the test case now fails (with the unpatched compiler) > > for *any* setting of -mfloat-abi (hard, soft, or softfp). Do you still > > want me to add a specific setting to the test case? > > No the mfpu=vfpv3 is fine. OK, thanks. > Instead of skipping I was wondering if we > could prune the outputs to get this through all the testers we have. Well, the problem is that with certain -march options (e.g. armv7) we get: /home/uweigand/gcc-head/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr50305.c:1:0: error: target CPU does not support ARM mode Since this is an *error*, pruning the output doesn't really help, the test isn't being run in any case. > Otherwise this is OK. Given the above, is the patch now OK as-is? Thanks, Ulrich -- Dr. Ulrich Weigand GNU Toolchain for Linux on System z and Cell BE ulrich.weig...@de.ibm.com
