On Tue, 2 Jan 2024, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> On 1/1/24 20:22, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > Tested mmix-knuth-mmixware (where all torture-variants of
> > gcc.dg/torture/inline-mem-cpy-1.c now pass) and native
> > x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Also stepped through the test for native,
> > w/wo. RUN_FRACTION defined to see that it worked as intended.
> >
> > You may wonder what about the "sibling" tests inline-mem-cmp-1.c and
> > inline-mem-cpy-cmp-1.c. Well, they FAIL, but not because of
> > timeouts(!) To be continued....
> >
> > Ok to commit?
> >
> > Or, other suggestions?
> I'm pretty sure there's already a target selector for "simulator" So you
> might be able to do this automagically with somethign like
>
> dg-additional-options "-DRUN_FRACTION=11" { target { simulator } }"
>
> Or something close to that.
Hm... But that's exactly what the one-line patch to
gcc.dg/torture/inline-mem-cpy-1.c looked like, last in the
submitted commit. I had to double-check my sent-mail folder
that I didn't miss that part. :)
I'm mostly worried about the patch to gcc.dg/memcpy-1.c.
Does that mean all-ok?
brgds, H-P
