This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Testsuite patch for Solaris 10

On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 07:14:05PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 04:07:05PM -0800, Janis Johnson wrote:
> > 
> >   { dg-do run [dg-target-list target
> >        [dg-and [dg-or [istarget i?86-*-*] [istarget powerpc-*-linux]]
> >                [is-effective-target ilp32]]] }
> > 
> > Would it be acceptable to do things like this within tests?
> Just my two cents... If I'm reading what you're trying to accomplish in
> that example correctly, I'd rather write it like this:
> { dg-do run { target i?86-*-* powerpc-*-linux } }
> { dg-require ilp32 }
> Yes, it doesn't have half the expressive flexibility.  When we run into
> this as a real problem, then we can define additional predicates which
> do whatever; we have that option.  I don't think we need to have
> boolean logic embedded in tests.

Please see
([RFC] allow effective-target keywords in dg- directive target lists)
for a description of a different method of specifying an effective
target class in xfail and target lists.  As you may have noticed, I
REALLY want a way to do this.  I'd like to know if this new approach
is reasonable given the goal of being able to replace the test
framework; I'd rather not hear that it's inappropriate _after_ adding
the functionality and using it in tests, but so far that RFC has been


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]