On 07/07/2011 09:48 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 07/07/11 17:30, Janis Johnson wrote:
>> On 07/07/2011 09:14 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>>> On 07/07/11 00:26, Janis Johnson wrote:
Index: gcc.target/arm/xor-and.c
===
On 07/07/11 17:30, Janis Johnson wrote:
> On 07/07/2011 09:14 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>> On 07/07/11 00:26, Janis Johnson wrote:
>>> Index: gcc.target/arm/xor-and.c
>>> ===
>>> --- gcc.target/arm/xor-and.c(revision 175921)
On 07/07/2011 09:14 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 07/07/11 00:26, Janis Johnson wrote:
>> Index: gcc.target/arm/pr41679.c
>
> I think this should just be moved to gcc.c-torture/compile. There
> doesn't seem to be anything processor-specific here.
>
>> Index: gcc.target/arm/pr46883.c
>
> Lik
On 07/07/11 00:26, Janis Johnson wrote:
> For three tests in gcc.target/arm that don't depend on processor-specific
> behavior, don't specify the -march option. This makes dg-prune-output
> for warnings about conflicts unnecessary, so remove it.
>
> Two of these tests are for internal compiler er
