Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Joel Sherrill wrote:
The unfortunate thing is that I think these
tests are really ensuring that MASK_DLMZB is
used as expected. If this is right, then
shouldn't there be a cpp predefine similar
to __NO_LWSYNC__ for dlmzb? And the tests use
that r
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> The unfortunate thing is that I think these
> tests are really ensuring that MASK_DLMZB is
> used as expected. If this is right, then
> shouldn't there be a cpp predefine similar
> to __NO_LWSYNC__ for dlmzb? And the tests use
> that rather than testin
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:10:18AM -0600, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> The unfortunate thing is that I think these
> tests are really ensuring that MASK_DLMZB is
> used as expected. If this is right, then
> shouldn't there be a cpp predefine similar
> to __NO_LWSYNC__ for dlmzb? And the tests use
> tha
Hi,
With the help of Janis, the ppc405 tests can
now detect when the scan assembler won't pass.
I moved on to do the same with the ppc440 tests
and noticed that there is no cpp predefine
to know when you are compiled for a ppc440.
$ powerpc-rtems4.10-gcc -mcpu=440 -E - -dM 440
$ powerpc-rtems4.1
