On 10/19/2012 11:41 PM, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Chung-Lin Tang
> <clt...@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>> On 12/9/27 6:25 AM, Janis Johnson wrote:
>>> On 09/26/2012 01:58 AM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>>>
>>> +/* { dg-do compile } */
>>> +/* { dg-options "-mthumb -O1 -march=armv5te -fno-omit-frame-pointer
>>> -fno-forward-propagate" } */
>>> +/* { dg-require-effective-target arm_thumb1_ok } */
>>>
>>> This test will fail to compile for test flags that conflict with
>>> the -march option, and the specified -march option might be
>>> overridden with similar options from other test flags. The problem
>>> might have also been seen for other -march options. I recommend
>>> leaving it off and omitting the dg-require so the test can be run
>>> for more multilibs.
>>
>> I'm not sure, as the intent is to test a Thumb-1 case here. If the
>> maintainers think we should adjust the testcase, I'm of course fine with it.
>
> I think this is OK but you need to prune out the conflict warnings to
> reduce annoyance for folks doing multilib testing and it does look
> like more than one group.
>
> Longer term I wonder if we should reorganise gcc.target/arm and indeed
> gcc.target/aarch64 . Janis, do you have any other ideas ?
>
> * to contain a torture script that goes through all combinations of
> architectures and fpus' / arm / thumb for all the tests.
> * another sub-level directory for such directed tests where multilib
> options aren't applied which are essentially from regressions.
>
> However I don't know of an easy way by which we can ignore said
> multilib flags ?
>
> Ramana
Multilib flags are added deep in DejaGnu, and we would need to have a
local copy of a large procedure in order to do that.
Do enough people run a default multilib that we could use a torture
script only for a multilib with no flags?
Janis
