This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [testsuite] ARM test pr42093.c: thumb2 or thumb1
- From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>
- To: Janis Johnson <janisjo at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana dot radhakrishnan at linaro dot org>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2011 10:26:38 +0100
- Subject: Re: [testsuite] ARM test pr42093.c: thumb2 or thumb1
- References: <4E03DD02.6010706@codesourcery.com> <4E048EB5.3040207@linaro.org> <4E0D8D36.1020302@arm.com> <4E0E2687.7080106@codesourcery.com>
On 01/07/11 20:56, Janis Johnson wrote:
> On 07/01/2011 02:02 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>> On 24/06/11 14:18, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
>>> On 24/06/11 01:40, Janis Johnson wrote:
>>>> Test gcc.target/arm/pr42093.c, added by Ramana, requires support for
>>>> arm_thumb2 but fails for those targets. The patch for which it was
>>>> added modified support for thumb1. Should the test instead require
>>>> arm_thumb1_ok, as in this patch?
>>>
>>> No this is for a Thumb2 defect so the test is valid for Thumb2 - we
>>> shouldn't be generating a tbb / tbh with signed offsets and that's what
>>> was happening there.
>>>
>>> This test I think ends up being fragile because the generation of tbb /
>>> tbh depends on how the blocks have been laid out . It would be
>>> interesting to try and get a test that works reliably in T2 .
>>>
>>> cheers
>>> Ramana
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Janis
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Perhaps -fno-reorder-blocks could be used to make it less fragile.
>>
>> R.
>>
>
> It passes for all thumb2 targets with that option.
>
> Janis
>
>
>
Ok, so consider a patch to use that option pre-approved.
R.