"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
Hi Eric,
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.
Mit freundlichem Gruß / Kind regards,
Andreas Krebbel
**
[ 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
10 matches
Mail list logo
