On Mar 24, 2021, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> FYI, testsuite patches do not need a full bootstrap.
*nod*, it was the "along with other patches" that was the key. But
yeah, this was a patch that was extremely unlikely to introduce
fails in the testsuite, so I went ahead and put it in, after fixing
typos
On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 10:14 AM Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> On Mar 24, 2021, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
> > Other than above, can you please introduce
> > check_effectve_target_sysconf to lib/target-supports.exp (similar to
> > existing check_effective_target_mmap) and use it instead of target
> > sele
On Mar 24, 2021, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> Other than above, can you please introduce
> check_effectve_target_sysconf to lib/target-supports.exp (similar to
> existing check_effective_target_mmap) and use it instead of target
> selectors?
Here it is. I've tested the affected tests with it. I'll giv
On Mar 24, 2021, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Mar 24, 2021, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> There are several other tests in gcc.target/i386 directory that call sysconf:
Ooh, indeed, thanks, good catch.
The reason I didn't catch them was that the full test results analysis
that got me started at it was in a
On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 8:17 AM Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 7:56 AM Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >
> >
> > The gcc.target/i386 test sse2-mmx-maskmovq.c requires the mmap
> > feature, but that's not enough for the test to be able to call
> > sysconf.
> >
> > I've combined the target
On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 7:56 AM Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
>
> The gcc.target/i386 test sse2-mmx-maskmovq.c requires the mmap
> feature, but that's not enough for the test to be able to call
> sysconf.
>
> I've combined the target triplets used in other sysconf-calling tests,
> omitting non-x86 ones
