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 Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 01:06:38PM -0800, Janis Johnson wrote:
> 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
> ignored.

I think that's a very nice idea.  How would you use it for the above,
i.e. in target list and not 64-bit?

Daniel Jacobowitz

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