Hi,

This patch updates test cases to use the new powerpc_future_ok effective target.

Tested on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu with no problems.  Is this okay for 
trunk?

Thanks,
Bill


2019-05-29  Bill Schmidt  <wschm...@linux.ibm.com>
            Michael Meissner  <meiss...@linux.ibm.com>

        * gcc.target/powerpc/cpu-future.c: Require powerpc_future_ok.
        * gcc.target/powerpc/localentry-1.c: Likewise.
        * gcc.target/powerpc/localentry-direct-1.c: Likewise.
        * gcc.target/powerpc/notoc-direct-1.c: Likewise.
        * gcc.target/powerpc/pcrel-sibcall-1.c: Likewise.


diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/cpu-future.c 
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/cpu-future.c
index d0725867ffa..ae406d08b23 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/cpu-future.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/cpu-future.c
@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
 /* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-require-effective-target powerpc_future_ok } */
 /* { dg-options "-mdejagnu-cpu=future -O2" } */
 
 /* Ensure -mcpu=future compiles cleanly.  */
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/localentry-1.c 
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/localentry-1.c
index ce687a7f6ec..dc4867d0a3c 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/localentry-1.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/localentry-1.c
@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
 /* { dg-do compile } */
 /* { dg-options "-mdejagnu-cpu=future -O2" } */
 /* { dg-require-effective-target powerpc_elfv2 } */
+/* { dg-require-effective-target powerpc_future_ok } */
 
 /* Ensure we generate ".localentry fn,1" for both leaf and non-leaf
    functions.  */
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/localentry-detect-1.c 
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/localentry-detect-1.c
index db20aedeb71..70b18ff0aca 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/localentry-detect-1.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/localentry-detect-1.c
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
 /* { dg-do compile } */
 /* { dg-require-effective-target powerpc_elfv2 } */
+/* { dg-require-effective-target powerpc_future_ok } */
 /* { dg-options "-O2 -mdejagnu-cpu=future" } */
 
 
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/notoc-direct-1.c 
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/notoc-direct-1.c
index 31497261ddf..0917f307e65 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/notoc-direct-1.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/notoc-direct-1.c
@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
 /* { dg-do compile } */
 /* { dg-options "-mdejagnu-cpu=future -O2" } */
 /* { dg-require-effective-target powerpc_elfv2 } */
+/* { dg-require-effective-target powerpc_future_ok } */
 
 /* Test that calls generated from PC-relative code are
    annotated with @notoc.  */
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pcrel-sibcall-1.c 
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pcrel-sibcall-1.c
index 7c767e2ba32..bd7a0a9bcda 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pcrel-sibcall-1.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pcrel-sibcall-1.c
@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
 /* { dg-do compile } */
 /* { dg-options "-mdejagnu-cpu=future -O2" } */
 /* { dg-require-effective-target powerpc_elfv2 } */
+/* { dg-require-effective-target powerpc_future_ok } */
 
 /* Test that potential sibcalls are not generated when the caller preserves
    the TOC and the callee doesn't, or vice versa.  */

Reply via email to