>>
> Committed to trunk r226036.
> Is patch ok for fsf-5?
OK for all release branches where affected as this is a testism.
Ramana
> kind regards,
> Alex
>
On 25/06/15 14:35, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 5:56 PM, Alex Velenko wrote:
On 20/05/15 21:14, Joseph Myers wrote:
Again, the condition you propose to add doesn't make sense. arm_arch_X_ok
is only appropriate for tests using an explicit -march=X. Testing with
-march=
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 5:56 PM, Alex Velenko wrote:
> On 20/05/15 21:14, Joseph Myers wrote:
>>
>> Again, the condition you propose to add doesn't make sense. arm_arch_X_ok
>> is only appropriate for tests using an explicit -march=X. Testing with
>> -march=armv7* should automatically skip this
I have no more comments on this patch.
--
Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com
On 20/05/15 21:14, Joseph Myers wrote:
Again, the condition you propose to add doesn't make sense. arm_arch_X_ok
is only appropriate for tests using an explicit -march=X. Testing with
-march=armv7* should automatically skip this test anyway because it would
cause arm_thumb1_ok to fail.
Hi,
On Wed, 20 May 2015, Alex Velenko wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This patch limits testcase split-live-ranges-for-shrink-wrap.c runs to
> supported achitecture versions.
> Object size with -march=armv4t check fails because pop pc is not interworking
> safe on armv4t.
> This test is not supported for -march=arm
