Hi Carl,
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 08:20:16AM -0800, Carl Love wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-02-12 at 09:17 -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > Without the powerpc64*-*-* the test was still tried to compiled the
> > > test case in 32-bit mode on BE and failed.
> >
> > If the dg-do target clause fails, y
On Mon, 2018-02-12 at 09:17 -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi Carl,
>
> On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 02:09:06PM -0800, Carl Love wrote:
> > As pointed out, the dg arguments in new test file was missing the
> > {target 128}. I updated the arguments to be
> >
> > { dg-do run { target { int128
Hi Carl,
On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 02:09:06PM -0800, Carl Love wrote:
> As pointed out, the dg arguments in new test file was missing the
> {target 128}. I updated the arguments to be
>
> { dg-do run { target { int128 && powerpc64*-*-* } } }
>
> Without the powerpc64*-*-* the test was still
Hi Carl,
On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 08:22:57AM -0800, Carl Love wrote:
> The following patch contains fixes for the builtins4-runnable.c test in
> 32-bit mode for the current GCC 8 branch. This is issue #290 in Bill
> Schmidt's issues. The int128 and uint128 variable types are not
> supported in 32
GCC maintainers:
As pointed out, the dg arguments in new test file was missing the
{target 128}. I updated the arguments to be
{ dg-do run { target { int128 && powerpc64*-*-* } } }
Without the powerpc64*-*-* the test was still tried to compiled the
test case in 32-bit mode on BE and failed
GCC maintainers:
The following patch contains fixes for the builtins4-runnable.c test in
32-bit mode for the current GCC 8 branch. This is issue #290 in Bill
Schmidt's issues. The int128 and uint128 variable types are not
supported in 32-bit mode. The tests were moved to a new test file and
res
