Hi Martin,
>>> PS I'm not happy about duplicating the same test across all those
>>> targets. It would be much nicer to have a single test somewhere
>>> in dg.exp #include a target-specific header with macros describing
>>> the target-specific parameters.
>>
>> why so complicated? Just have a si
On 12/5/18 6:09 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
Hi Martin,
The tests for the new __builtin_has_attribute function have been
failing on a number of targets because of a couple of assumptions
that only hold on some.
First, they expect that it's safe to apply attribute aligned with
a smaller alignment tha
On 12/5/18 6:09 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
>> The tests for the new __builtin_has_attribute function have been
>> failing on a number of targets because of a couple of assumptions
>> that only hold on some.
>>
>> First, they expect that it's safe to apply attribute aligned with
>> a sma
Hi Martin,
> The tests for the new __builtin_has_attribute function have been
> failing on a number of targets because of a couple of assumptions
> that only hold on some.
>
> First, they expect that it's safe to apply attribute aligned with
> a smaller alignment than the target provides when GCC
On 11/27/18 9:32 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> The tests for the new __builtin_has_attribute function have been
> failing on a number of targets because of a couple of assumptions
> that only hold on some.
>
> First, they expect that it's safe to apply attribute aligned with
> a smaller alignment than
The tests for the new __builtin_has_attribute function have been
failing on a number of targets because of a couple of assumptions
that only hold on some.
First, they expect that it's safe to apply attribute aligned with
a smaller alignment than the target provides when GCC rejects such
arguments
