On Mon, 2008-04-28 at 07:47 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Joel Sherrill wrote:
>
> >> 1. Make these tests say something about what capability they require,
> >> with a dg-require directive, and then write autoconf-style tests run by
> >> the testsuite to determine whether the current compiler has
Joel Sherrill wrote:
1. Make these tests say something about what capability they require,
with a dg-require directive, and then write autoconf-style tests run by
the testsuite to determine whether the current compiler has that
capability. For example, add a "dg-require-hard-float" directive, a
Mark Mitchell wrote:
Janis Johnson wrote:
This will involve editing every test that using dg-options
to add a -mcpu/-march flag. Would it make sense to let
dg-options check for the conflict as it adds an option?
Yes, it would meaning adding the new option to hundreds of tests,
but t
Janis Johnson wrote:
This will involve editing every test that using dg-options
to add a -mcpu/-march flag. Would it make sense to let
dg-options check for the conflict as it adds an option?
Yes, it would meaning adding the new option to hundreds of tests,
but that's better than the earlier s
On Thu, 2008-04-24 at 18:14 -0500, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> Janis Johnson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-04-24 at 17:54 -0500, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Not knowing the internal details of the test harness, I
> >> would make an ignorant guess that the command line
> >> should be checked before it
Janis Johnson wrote:
On Thu, 2008-04-24 at 17:54 -0500, Joel Sherrill wrote:
Not knowing the internal details of the test harness, I
would make an ignorant guess that the command line
should be checked before it is executed. If it has multiple
-mcpu/-march options and they were not all the
On Thu, 2008-04-24 at 17:54 -0500, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> Not knowing the internal details of the test harness, I
> would make an ignorant guess that the command line
> should be checked before it is executed. If it has multiple
> -mcpu/-march options and they were not all the same, the
> test sh
Janis Johnson wrote:
On Wed, 2008-04-23 at 10:56 -0500, Joel Sherrill wrote:
Hi,
I am returning to this issue and it is more
pressing testing powerpc on 4.3.0 and the trunk.
powerpc-rtems has gone from a relatively small
percentage of failures to >8300 and this warning
shows up a lot (512033
On Wed, 2008-04-23 at 10:56 -0500, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am returning to this issue and it is more
> pressing testing powerpc on 4.3.0 and the trunk.
> powerpc-rtems has gone from a relatively small
> percentage of failures to >8300 and this warning
> shows up a lot (5120334 times)!
>
Hi,
I am returning to this issue and it is more
pressing testing powerpc on 4.3.0 and the trunk.
powerpc-rtems has gone from a relatively small
percentage of failures to >8300 and this warning
shows up a lot (5120334 times)!
Warning: /home/joel/work-gnat/svn/b-gcc1-powerpc/rtems_gcc_main.o uses
10 matches
Mail list logo
