Hi Andreas,
Sorry I haven't responded sooner; I was on vacation and have been
unpiling things since then. The test case had already been updated
since the patch you cited, adding
/* { dg-require-effective-target powerpc64 } */
Is this the version you're testing with?
Thanks,
Bill
On Sat, 2016
Bill Schmidt writes:
> Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr63354.c
> ===
> --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr63354.c(revision 0)
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr63354.c(working copy)
> @@ -0,0 +1,1
Thanks, committed as r232793.
Bill
On Mon, 2016-01-25 at 08:54 -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 9:17 PM, Bill Schmidt
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Jan, thanks for the report! Patch below that should fix the problem.
> > Bootstrapped and tested on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu, no
>
On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 9:17 PM, Bill Schmidt
wrote:
> Hi Jan, thanks for the report! Patch below that should fix the problem.
> Bootstrapped and tested on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu, no
> regressions. David, is this ok for trunk?
>
> Thanks,
> Bill
>
>
> 2016-01-24 Bill Schmidt
>
>
On Sun, 2016-01-24 at 02:18 +0100, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-01-21 23:42:40 -0600, Bill Schmidt
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2016-01-21 at 21:21 -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> > > The testcase will need a slight adjustment, as currently it fails on
> > > powerpc64 with -m32 testing. Working
On Thu, 2016-01-21 23:42:40 -0600, Bill Schmidt
wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-01-21 at 21:21 -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> > The testcase will need a slight adjustment, as currently it fails on
> > powerpc64 with -m32 testing. Working on a fix.
>
> This patch adjusts the gcc.target/powerpc/pr63354 test
OK, thanks, Joseph! I'll make that adjustment later today.
Bill
On Fri, 2016-01-22 at 15:51 +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jan 2016, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>
> > +/* { dg-do compile { target { powerpc64*-linux-* } } } */
>
> That's suboptimal; you should allow powerpc*-*-linux* targets s
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> +/* { dg-do compile { target { powerpc64*-linux-* } } } */
That's suboptimal; you should allow powerpc*-*-linux* targets so that the
test is also run for --enable-targets=all powerpc-linux builds when
testing a -m64 multilib.
--
Joseph S. Myers
jos..
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:42 AM, Bill Schmidt
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 2016-01-21 at 21:21 -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>> The testcase will need a slight adjustment, as currently it fails on
>> powerpc64 with -m32 testing. Working on a fix.
>>
>> Bill
>>
>
> This patch adjusts the gcc.target/powe
Hi,
On Thu, 2016-01-21 at 21:21 -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> The testcase will need a slight adjustment, as currently it fails on
> powerpc64 with -m32 testing. Working on a fix.
>
> Bill
>
This patch adjusts the gcc.target/powerpc/pr63354 test to require 64-bit
code generation, and also restr
The testcase will need a slight adjustment, as currently it fails on
powerpc64 with -m32 testing. Working on a fix.
Bill
On Thu, 2016-01-21 at 12:28 -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Bill Schmidt
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Anton Blanchard proposed a fix to his own b
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Bill Schmidt
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Anton Blanchard proposed a fix to his own bug report in
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63354, but never submitted
> the patch upstream. I've added a formal test case and am submitting on
> his behalf.
>
> The patch si
12 matches
Mail list logo
