"Andreas Krebbel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've decided not to disable the testcase completely for small stack
> sizes. Although it is unlikely that it triggers the reload problem in
> some way the testcase is weird enough to trigger something else.
>
> Ok for mainline?
OK.
Thanks.
Ian
Ian Lance Taylor wrote on 08 August 2008 01:17:
> "Dave Korn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Ian Lance Taylor wrote on 07 August 2008 19:20:
>>
>>> If the test will run on most normal targets, then a better approach is
>>> to add something like
>>>
>>> #if defined(STACK_SIZE) && STACK_SIZE <
Hello Ian,
> In that case, just comment out the bulk of the test based on
> STACK_SIZE.
Ok. How about that patch? It should be ok until someone digs out a
target with a stack size below 64 bytes ;) (plus the bytes for the
other auto variables).
I've decided not to disable the testcase completel
"Dave Korn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ian Lance Taylor wrote on 07 August 2008 19:20:
>
>> If the test will run on most normal targets, then a better approach is
>> to add something like
>>
>> #if defined(STACK_SIZE) && STACK_SIZE < 1000
>> exit (0); /* or "return 0" from main, as appropria
Ian Lance Taylor wrote on 07 August 2008 19:20:
> If the test will run on most normal targets, then a better approach is
> to add something like
>
> #if defined(STACK_SIZE) && STACK_SIZE < 1000
> exit (0); /* or "return 0" from main, as appropriate"
> #endif
:) Actually, it's a compile test
Andreas Krebbel1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> it is important for the testcase that the array is that big. In order to
> avoid breaking other targets with that I've moved the testcase to the s390
> specific directory. I've already committed the patch. Sorry for the
> breakage.
If the test will r
008 06:48 PM
>
> To
>
>
>
> cc
>
> "Andy Hutchinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Anatoly Sokolov"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Andreas Krebbel1/Germany/[EMAIL PROTECTED],
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Subject
>
> New test is invalid for AVR
>
[ Oh, hi Andreas, I just saw you're Cc'd into this thread! I guess that
post I sent to the -patches list was a bit superfluous then, sorry about
that! ]
Weddington, Eric wrote on 06 August 2008 18:14:
> I do have that line that you have in my atmega128-sim.exp:
> set_board_info gcc,stack_size
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave Korn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 11:04 AM
> To: Weddington, Eric; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: 'Andy Hutchinson'; 'Anatoly Sokolov'; 'Andreas Krebbel';
> [EMAIL PROTE
Weddington, Eric wrote on 06 August 2008 17:49:
> Hi All,
>
> The new test gcc.c-torture/compile/20080806-1.c, added by Andreas Krebbel
> on 2008-08-06, causes 8 new test failures for the AVR target. This test
> is invalid for the AVR because the local array is too large for the AVR
> (64+ K). II
Hi All,
The new test gcc.c-torture/compile/20080806-1.c, added by Andreas Krebbel on
2008-08-06, causes 8 new test failures for the AVR target. This test is invalid
for the AVR because the local array is too large for the AVR (64+ K). IIRC, for
testing purposes the AVR target only allows a 2K s
11 matches
Mail list logo
