This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org 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: [PATCH,testsuite] add check_ultrasparc_hw_available

From: Nathan Froyd <froydnj at codesourcery dot com>
To: Janis Johnson <janis187 at us dot ibm dot com>
Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:49:17 -0700
Subject: Re: [PATCH,testsuite] add check_ultrasparc_hw_available
References: <20070710202343.GA31569@sparrowhawk.codesourcery.com> <1184099968.5819.37.camel@janis-laptop>

On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 01:39:28PM -0700, Janis Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 13:23 -0700, Nathan Froyd wrote:
> > The attached patch adds a procedure, check_ultrasparc_hw_available, to
> > the testsuite, and uses it to control execution of several tests,
> > including all of the tests in vect.exp.
> 
> Instead of check_ultrasparc_hw_available please use
> check_effective_target_ultrasparc_hw; there are lots of examples
> of similar support in lib/target-support.exp.  That will let you
> avoid changes to is-effective-target and
> is-effective-target-keyword.  Use check_no_compiler_messages to
> avoid further overhead.

OK, thanks for the review.

Does check_no_compiler_messages apply here?  I'm trying to grab the
results of running a program and it seems like
check_no_compiler_messages is strictly a compile-time thing.  I want to
make sure I'm not missing anything.

-Nathan

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH,testsuite] add check_ultrasparc_hw_available
  - From: Janis Johnson

References:
- [PATCH,testsuite] add check_ultrasparc_hw_available
  - From: Nathan Froyd
- Re: [PATCH,testsuite] add check_ultrasparc_hw_available
  - From: Janis Johnson

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