Some MIPS patch need review and approval.

Hi, GCC steering committee: There are some MIPS patches that need to be reviewed and approved. [PATCH v3 0/6] [MIPS] Reorganize the loongson march and extensions instructions set. [1] [PATCH v3 1/6] [MIPS] Split Loongson (MMI) from loongson3a. [2] [PATCH v3 2/6] [MIPS] Split Loongson EXTensions

Re: how to build and test uClinux toolchains

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 19:54, Max Filippov wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 6:51 AM Christophe Lyon > wrote: > > On Sun, 21 Oct 2018 at 04:06, Max Filippov wrote: > > > Probably the easiest way to get all xtensa toolchain parts correctly it > > > by using existing buildroot configuration. E.g.

Builtin mismatch warning

I noticed a curious inconsistency. Some testcases (like gcc.dg/Wrestrict-4.c) have declarations like this: void *alloca(); void* memcpy (); Those don't generate warnings in a just built V9.0 gcc for x86. And the testcase clearly doesn't expect warnings. But I do get a warning (warning: confli

dg-add-options ieee ?

I see some test cases that say dg-add-options ieee. That apparently means: pretend we have IEEE float even when the target does not. What is the point of doing that? On non-IEEE targets such test cases fail -- at least they do on pdp11. Instead I'd expect a check that skips these tests if no

Re: dg-add-options ieee ?

On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 02:20:38PM -0400, Paul Koning wrote: > I see some test cases that say dg-add-options ieee. That apparently means: > pretend we have IEEE float even when the target does not. It means: (from testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp) === # Add to FLAGS all the target-specific fl

Re: dg-add-options ieee ?

> On Oct 31, 2018, at 3:55 PM, Segher Boessenkool > wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 02:20:38PM -0400, Paul Koning wrote: >> I see some test cases that say dg-add-options ieee. That apparently means: >> pretend we have IEEE float even when the target does not. > > It means: > > (from te

Re: dg-add-options ieee ?

Hi Paul, > Ok, thanks. So adding a dg-skip-if for my target is indeed correct. Will do > so. please don't: since this is going to be common, please add a corresponding effective-target keyword instead, together with sourcebuild.texi documentation. That's far more expressive than explicit targ

Re: Builtin mismatch warning

On 10/31/2018 12:15 PM, Paul Koning wrote: I noticed a curious inconsistency. Some testcases (like gcc.dg/Wrestrict-4.c) have declarations like this: void *alloca(); void* memcpy (); Those don't generate warnings in a just built V9.0 gcc for x86. And the testcase clearly doesn't expect warni

Re: Builtin mismatch warning

> On Oct 31, 2018, at 4:21 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > > On 10/31/2018 12:15 PM, Paul Koning wrote: >> I noticed a curious inconsistency. >> >> Some testcases (like gcc.dg/Wrestrict-4.c) have declarations like this: >> >> void *alloca(); >> void* memcpy (); >> >> Those don't generate warnings

Re: dg-add-options ieee ?

> On Oct 31, 2018, at 4:11 PM, Rainer Orth > wrote: > > Hi Paul, > >> Ok, thanks. So adding a dg-skip-if for my target is indeed correct. Will >> do so. > > please don't: since this is going to be common, please add a > corresponding effective-target keyword instead, together with > sour

Re: dg-add-options ieee ?

Hi Paul, >> On Oct 31, 2018, at 4:11 PM, Rainer Orth >> wrote: >> >> Hi Paul, >> >>> Ok, thanks. So adding a dg-skip-if for my target is indeed correct. >>> Will do so. >> >> please don't: since this is going to be common, please add a >> corresponding effective-target keyword instead, toget

Re: dg-add-options ieee ?

On Wed, 31 Oct 2018, Paul Koning wrote: > So you mean, add a new keyword (say, "ieee") to dg-effective-target that > means "run this test only on ieee targets"? Note that different tests may need different IEEE features, though some such cases are already handled specially anyway - so be clear

Re: Builtin mismatch warning

On 10/31/2018 03:10 PM, Paul Koning wrote: On Oct 31, 2018, at 4:21 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: On 10/31/2018 12:15 PM, Paul Koning wrote: I noticed a curious inconsistency. Some testcases (like gcc.dg/Wrestrict-4.c) have declarations like this: void *alloca(); void* memcpy (); Those don't g

Re: dg-add-options ieee ?

> On Oct 31, 2018, at 5:47 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: > > On Wed, 31 Oct 2018, Paul Koning wrote: > >> So you mean, add a new keyword (say, "ieee") to dg-effective-target that >> means "run this test only on ieee targets"? > > Note that different tests may need different IEEE features, though