> On Sep 16, 2021, at 12:39 PM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 16 Sep 2021, at 18:11, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 16, 2021, at 10:47 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 03:39:46PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
> Even -mtune= is needed if y
> On 16 Sep 2021, at 18:11, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Sep 16, 2021, at 10:47 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 03:39:46PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
Even -mtune= is needed if you want to stay safe, otherwise people testing
with --target_boa
> On Sep 16, 2021, at 10:47 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 03:39:46PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>> Even -mtune= is needed if you want to stay safe, otherwise people testing
>>> with --target_board=unix/-mtune=cascadelake (or whatever else) might get
>>> failures.
>>
>> Ok
On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 03:39:46PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
> > Even -mtune= is needed if you want to stay safe, otherwise people testing
> > with --target_board=unix/-mtune=cascadelake (or whatever else) might get
> > failures.
>
> Okay. Will try this.
> >
> >>> and ideally also -fno-stack-protec
> On Sep 16, 2021, at 9:56 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 02:49:23PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>> Testing for many instructions is always very fragile and dependent on exact
>>> compiler flags etc.
>>
>> Yes, It’s indeed very fragile.
>>> So, either the test should have a
On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 02:49:23PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
> > Testing for many instructions is always very fragile and dependent on exact
> > compiler flags etc.
>
> Yes, It’s indeed very fragile.
> > So, either the test should have a particular
> > -march=/-mtune= options
>
> I might add spec
Hi, Jakub,
> On Sep 16, 2021, at 4:19 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 05:59:08PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>> Note, the gcc.dg/i386/auto-init* tests fail also, just don't have time to
>>> deal with that right now, just try
>>> make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS='--target_board=unix\
On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 05:59:08PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
> > Note, the gcc.dg/i386/auto-init* tests fail also, just don't have time to
> > deal with that right now, just try
> > make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS='--target_board=unix\{-m32,-m64\}
> > i386.exp=auto-init*'
>
> It’s strange that the abov
> On Sep 11, 2021, at 3:03 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> Note, the gcc.dg/i386/auto-init* tests fail also, just don't have time to
> deal with that right now, just try
> make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS='--target_board=unix\{-m32,-m64\}
> i386.exp=auto-init*'
It’s strange that the above testing on
Hi, Jakub,
Thanks a lot for your patch to the testing cases in c-c++-common.
Actually I had a local fix too, and I planed to submitted it after I fixed all
the failure for dg.target/i386 failures on different platforms..;-)
> On Sep 11, 2021, at 3:03 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep
On September 11, 2021 10:03:20 AM GMT+02:00, Jakub Jelinek
wrote:
>On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 02:47:11PM +, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> > 2021-08-20 qing zhao
>> >
>> >* c-c++-common/auto-init-1.c: New test.
>> >* c-c++-common/auto-init-10.c: New test.
>> >* c
On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 02:47:11PM +, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > 2021-08-20 qing zhao
> >
> >* c-c++-common/auto-init-1.c: New test.
> >* c-c++-common/auto-init-10.c: New test.
> >* c-c++-common/auto-init-11.c: New test.
> >* c-c++-common/auto-init-
12 matches
Mail list logo
