On 01/07/11 20:56, Janis Johnson wrote:
> On 07/01/2011 02:02 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>> On 24/06/11 14:18, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
>>> On 24/06/11 01:40, Janis Johnson wrote:
Test gcc.target/arm/pr42093.c, added by Ramana, requires support for
arm_thumb2 but fails for those targe
On 07/01/2011 02:02 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 24/06/11 14:18, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
>> On 24/06/11 01:40, Janis Johnson wrote:
>>> Test gcc.target/arm/pr42093.c, added by Ramana, requires support for
>>> arm_thumb2 but fails for those targets. The patch for which it was
>>> added modi
On 24/06/11 14:18, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> On 24/06/11 01:40, Janis Johnson wrote:
>> Test gcc.target/arm/pr42093.c, added by Ramana, requires support for
>> arm_thumb2 but fails for those targets. The patch for which it was
>> added modified support for thumb1. Should the test instead requ
On 24/06/11 01:40, Janis Johnson wrote:
Test gcc.target/arm/pr42093.c, added by Ramana, requires support for
arm_thumb2 but fails for those targets. The patch for which it was
added modified support for thumb1. Should the test instead require
arm_thumb1_ok, as in this patch?
No this is for a
Test gcc.target/arm/pr42093.c, added by Ramana, requires support for
arm_thumb2 but fails for those targets. The patch for which it was
added modified support for thumb1. Should the test instead require
arm_thumb1_ok, as in this patch?
Janis
2011-06-23 Janis Johnson
* gcc.target/arm/
