This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Testsuite patch for Solaris 10
- From: Janis Johnson <janis187 at us dot ibm dot com>
- To: Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>
- Cc: Janis Johnson <janis187 at us dot ibm dot com>, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, mark at codesourcery dot com
- Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:32:12 -0800
- Subject: Re: Testsuite patch for Solaris 10
- References: <20041113000705.GA7721@us.ibm.com> <D45F1201-3511-11D9-A6BD-003065BDF310@apple.com>
On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 05:17:47PM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Friday, November 12, 2004, at 04:07 PM, Janis Johnson wrote:
> >Would it be acceptable to do things like this within tests?
> (or ...
> (is-effective-target ilp32))
> is less preferable to:
> ... is-effective-target ilp32 ...
Oops, I hadn't considered that [dg-whatever] is handled by TCL. When
TCL does the work then procedures can receive the result of a condition;
otherwise it gets very messy, particularly since I was hoping to use the
results of [dg-target-list xxx] as arguments to proces that are within
> With a little luck, complex formulations will be rare. If necessary,
> we can always use the complex formulation, just it comes last.
> Hopefully in time, we can find ways of reducing, stylizing or factoring
> them out.
> Don't make mince as an objection to any code you want to do, I'll leave
> that for others.
My selfish goal here is to get powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu test results
for -m32/-m64 small enough to understand. Some of the reported failures
are real bugs, but many are for tests that should sometimes be skipped.
I'm very glad to be getting feedback about these things now.