On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 04:18:29PM +, Iain Sandoe wrote:
> thus is everyone reasonably happy with?
>
> Index: gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cxxbitfields-3.c
> ===
> --- gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cxxbitfields-3.c (revision 1822
On 12 Dec 2011, at 15:47, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 04:20:57PM +0100, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
I'm fine with whatever you guys come up with...
Likewise. I have no preference. Whatever gets approved is ok
with me.
So let's pick the Iain's proposal:
Index: gcc/tests
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 04:20:57PM +0100, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
> > > I'm fine with whatever you guys come up with...
> >
> > Likewise. I have no preference. Whatever gets approved is ok with me.
>
> So let's pick the Iain's proposal:
>
> Index: gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cxxbitfields-3.c
> > I'm fine with whatever you guys come up with...
>
> Likewise. I have no preference. Whatever gets approved is ok with me.
So let's pick the Iain's proposal:
Index: gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cxxbitfields-3.c
===
--- gcc/testsui
On 12/11/11 16:51, Mike Stump wrote:
On Dec 9, 2011, at 11:45 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
How about the patch below?
I'm fine with whatever you guys come up with...
Likewise. I have no preference. Whatever gets approved is ok with me.
On Dec 9, 2011, at 11:45 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> How about the patch below?
I'm fine with whatever you guys come up with...
On 9 Dec 2011, at 20:56, Iain Sandoe wrote:
[[** I'm checking out whether it's feasible to switch off PIC for
m64 Darwin .. so one could just do the test -fno-PIC ..
... works for m32 - but PIC is jammed on for x86/m64 ... ]]
I guess the problem is that, whilst we *could* arrange to all
On 9 Dec 2011, at 19:45, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On 12/09/11 13:19, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 08:17:04PM +0100, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "movl.*, (_?var|\\(%)" } } */
It works for me too.
Except that when matching just , (% it doesn't tes
On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 01:45:48PM -0600, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> On 12/09/11 13:19, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 08:17:04PM +0100, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "movl.*, (_?var|\\(%)" } } */
>>>
>>> It works for me too.
>>
>> Except that when ma
On 12/09/11 13:19, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 08:17:04PM +0100, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "movl.*, (_?var|\\(%)" } } */
It works for me too.
Except that when matching just , (% it doesn't test almost anything.
IMNSHO you should instead just
On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 08:17:04PM +0100, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
> > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "movl.*, (_?var|\\(%)" } } */
>
> It works for me too.
Except that when matching just , (% it doesn't test almost anything.
IMNSHO you should instead just test it { target !fpic } or similar.
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "movl.*, (_?var|\\(%)" } } */
It works for me too.
Thanks,
Dominique
On 9 Dec 2011, at 18:52, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
there are 4 cases: {c,c++} {m32,m64} with 4 different asm outputs
if that is a 'reasonable' situation - then might need to include
ilp64/ip32 in the target spec ...
Both the 32 and 64 bit versions of the Darwin output are correct, so
perhaps
there are 4 cases: {c,c++} {m32,m64} with 4 different asm outputs
if that is a 'reasonable' situation - then might need to include
ilp64/ip32 in the target spec ...
Both the 32 and 64 bit versions of the Darwin output are correct, so
perhaps something like I had originally proposed, but taki
On 9 Dec 2011, at 17:50, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
scan-assembler can be target-dependent if that would (as I read the
above) help.
Well, whadayaknow...
In that case we can have an x86 variant for Darwin, and one for
everything else x86.
in principle, it should be OK ... with *-*-darwin*
scan-assembler can be target-dependent if that would (as I read the
above) help.
Well, whadayaknow...
In that case we can have an x86 variant for Darwin, and one for
everything else x86.
OK?
testsuite/
* c-c++-common/cxxbitfields-3.c: Adjust regexp.
Index: testsuite/c-c++-common/c
On 9 Dec 2011, at 17:35, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
This test is somewhat problematic in that it's entirely dependent on
the assembler output. It's not reproducible on non-x86, so I
couldn't make it part of the simulate-thread framework.
What we're really testing is that the last move into "va
17 matches
Mail list logo
