On 12/04/11 20:16, Janis Johnson wrote:
On 04/08/2011 04:37 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
On Apr 8, 2011, at 8:07 AM, Janis Johnson wrote:
Test gcc.target/arm/pr43698.c specifies -march=armv7-a and fails
execution for multilibs whose hardware or simulator doesn't support that
architecture.
Ideally, I
On 12 April 2011 20:16, Janis Johnson wrote:
> On 04/08/2011 04:37 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
>> On Apr 8, 2011, at 8:07 AM, Janis Johnson wrote:
>>> Test gcc.target/arm/pr43698.c specifies -march=armv7-a and fails
>>> execution for multilibs whose hardware or simulator doesn't support that
>>> archite
On 04/08/2011 04:37 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Apr 8, 2011, at 8:07 AM, Janis Johnson wrote:
>> Test gcc.target/arm/pr43698.c specifies -march=armv7-a and fails
>> execution for multilibs whose hardware or simulator doesn't support that
>> architecture.
>
> Ideally, I'd like target people to weigh
On Apr 8, 2011, at 8:07 AM, Janis Johnson wrote:
> Test gcc.target/arm/pr43698.c specifies -march=armv7-a and fails
> execution for multilibs whose hardware or simulator doesn't support that
> architecture.
Ideally, I'd like target people to weigh in on target changes, ssa people to
weigh in on s
Test gcc.target/arm/pr43698.c specifies -march=armv7-a and fails
execution for multilibs whose hardware or simulator doesn't support that
architecture. The test doesn't depend on that option, and without it
will occasionally run for such a target anyway. This patch removes the
option, letting it
