On 02/03/2021 16:19, Richard Earnshaw via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On 01/03/2021 15:26, Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> Ping?
>>
>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2021 at 10:01, Christophe Lyon <christophe.l...@linaro.org>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Ping?
>>> I guess that's obvious enough?
>>>
>>> On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 at 10:03, Christophe Lyon
>>> <christophe.l...@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Depending on how the toolchain is configured or how the testsuite is
>>>> executed, -mthumb may not be compatible. Like for other tests, skip
>>>> pr97969.c in this case.
>>>>
>>>> For instance arm-linux-gnueabihf and -march=armv5t in RUNTESTFLAGS.
>>>>
>>>> 2021-01-27 Christophe Lyon <christophe.l...@linaro.org>
>>>>
>>>> gcc/testsuite/
>>>> PR target/97969
>>>> * gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c: Skip if thumb mode is not available.
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c
>>>> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c
>>>> index 714a1d1..0b5d07f 100644
>>>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c
>>>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr97969.c
>>>> @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
>>>> /* { dg-do compile } */
>>>> +/* { dg-skip-if "" { ! { arm_thumb1_ok || arm_thumb2_ok } } } */
>>>> /* { dg-options "-std=c99 -fno-omit-frame-pointer -mthumb -w -Os" } */
>>>>
>>>> typedef a[23];
>
> I'm working on a patch to make this sort of change unnecessary (I hope).
> Just running some final checks.
>
> R.
>
Ah, wait. This one already has an explicit -mthumb, so my patch won't
affect this. But why is -mthumb needed for this test anyway? It's just
a compilation test, so why not drop that and we'll generally get better
coverage all round.
R.
