On Tue, 2012-06-12 at 10:33 +0900, Kaz Kojima wrote:
> Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Jun 2012, Kaz Kojima wrote:
> > > Oleg Endo wrote:
> > > > Some of the tests pass, some of them don't because
> > > > of the auto-inc-dec issues mentioned in the PR.
> > >
> > > I thought that the tes
Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2012, Kaz Kojima wrote:
> > Oleg Endo wrote:
> > > Some of the tests pass, some of them don't because
> > > of the auto-inc-dec issues mentioned in the PR.
> >
> > I thought that the tests which are known to fail are marked
> > with XFAIL,
>
> Yes, wit
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012, Kaz Kojima wrote:
> Oleg Endo wrote:
> > Some of the tests pass, some of them don't because
> > of the auto-inc-dec issues mentioned in the PR.
>
> I thought that the tests which are known to fail are marked
> with XFAIL,
Yes, with a clear reference to the PR at the xfail.
T
Oleg Endo wrote:
> Some of the tests pass, some of them don't because
> of the auto-inc-dec issues mentioned in the PR.
I thought that the tests which are known to fail are marked
with XFAIL, though I'm not sure the usual way for the failing
test cases.
Regards,
kaz
Hello,
I'd like to add the attached SH test cases to verify the auto-inc-dec
pass operation on the SH target.
Checked by invoking the individual test cases manually with make
check-gcc on sh-sim. Some of the tests pass, some of them don't because
of the auto-inc-dec issues mentioned in the PR.
C
