On Jun 30, 2022, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2022, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> +proc check_effective_target_two_plus_gigs { } {
>> +return [check_no_compiler_messages two_plus_gigs executable {
>> +int dummy[0x8000];
> Don't you mean "char" as in "char du
On Thu, 23 Jun 2022, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc-patches wrote:
> +proc check_effective_target_two_plus_gigs { } {
> +return [check_no_compiler_messages two_plus_gigs executable {
> + int dummy[0x8000];
Don't you mean "char" as in "char dummy[0x8000]"?
Or else the effective predicate
On Jun 23, 2022, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> for gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
> * doc/sourcebuild.exp (Environment attributes): Document it.
Fixed two problems in the above, thanks for the ChangeLog checker. It's
.texi, and it belongs in gcc/ChangeLog.
--
Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker
On Jun 22, 2022, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Other selectors don't use CamelCase, so I guess it should be
> two_plus_gigs instead. There also needs to be an entry in
> sourcebuild.texi.
Thanks for the reminder, I keep forgetting about this.
> OK with those changes, thanks.
Here's what I'm goin
Alexandre Oliva writes:
> On Jun 21, 2022, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>
>> Could we instead have a new target selector for whether the memory
>> map includes xGB of RAM?
>
> How about this? Testing on aarch64-rtems6.0. Ok to install?
>
>
> aarch64: testsuite: symbol-range fallback to compile
>
>
On Jun 21, 2022, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Could we instead have a new target selector for whether the memory
> map includes xGB of RAM?
How about this? Testing on aarch64-rtems6.0. Ok to install?
aarch64: testsuite: symbol-range fallback to compile
From: Alexandre Oliva
On some of our e
Alexandre Oliva writes:
> On some of our embedded aarch64 targets, RAM size is too small for
> this test to fit. It doesn't look like this test requires linking,
> and if it does, the -tiny version may presumably get most of the
> coverage without going overboard in target system requirements.
L
