On Fri, 2023-03-17 at 17:10 +0100, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > From: David Malcolm
> > Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2023 14:42:58 -0400
>
> > I think I prefer the top one-liner dg-skip-if approach you
> > mentioned in
> > your original email; it seems simplest.
>
> Ok then. There's also a choice between
> From: David Malcolm
> Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2023 14:42:58 -0400
> I think I prefer the top one-liner dg-skip-if approach you mentioned in
> your original email; it seems simplest.
Ok then. There's also a choice between adding a
target-specifier (i.e. "{ target { ! default_packed } }") to
the dg-c
> From: Hans-Peter Nilsson
> Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2023 19:25:05 +0100
> That doesn't seem like a good idea. At a glance the
> *testcode* will be simpler, but the patch will be slightly
> larger
Bah, s/but the patch will be slightly larger/and the patch
will certainly be smaller, but because less i
On Thu, 2023-03-16 at 19:25 +0100, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > From: David Malcolm
> > Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2023 13:55:48 -0400
>
> > On Thu, 2023-03-09 at 19:56 +0100, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > > It's not obvious to me whether considered best to include or
> > > exclude these tests that depen
> From: David Malcolm
> Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2023 13:55:48 -0400
> On Thu, 2023-03-09 at 19:56 +0100, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > It's not obvious to me whether considered best to include or
> > exclude these tests that depend on structure layout details.
> > If excluding, the obvious alternative
On Thu, 2023-03-09 at 19:56 +0100, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> It's not obvious to me whether considered best to include or
> exclude these tests that depend on structure layout details.
> If excluding, the obvious alternative to this patch is then
> to add a top one-liner (to dg-skip-if the test f
Pinging this patch.
> From: Hans-Peter Nilsson
> Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2023 19:56:16 +0100
>
> It's not obvious to me whether considered best to include or
> exclude these tests that depend on structure layout details.
> If excluding, the obvious alternative to this patch is then
> to add a top one-l
It's not obvious to me whether considered best to include or
exclude these tests that depend on structure layout details.
If excluding, the obvious alternative to this patch is then
to add a top one-liner (to dg-skip-if the test for
default_packed targets or a similar excluding expression).
I'm fin
