This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [patch, nios2] testsuite cleanup
- From: Mike Stump <mikestump at comcast dot net>
- To: Sandra Loosemore <sandra at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Chung-Lin Tang <cltang at codesourcery dot com>, Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>, dnovillo at google dot com, amacleod at redhat dot com
- Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 14:50:08 -0700
- Subject: Re: [patch, nios2] testsuite cleanup
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <53F6098F dot 9000506 at codesourcery dot com> <3BE409FD-12EE-4048-8B2B-B32ECEA9256C at comcast dot net> <53F63384 dot 1090005 at codesourcery dot com>
On Aug 21, 2014, at 10:59 AM, Sandra Loosemore <sandra@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On 08/21/2014 11:36 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
>> On Aug 21, 2014, at 8:00 AM, Sandra Loosemore
>> <sandra@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>>> tests that assume some non-default branch costs in the back end
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> One comment, could you put in /* non default branch cost */ above the
>> three where that is true.
>
> The three what? :-S
Sorry, I meant 4… Your patch has four instances of this change:
-/* { dg-do run { target { ! "m68k*-*-* mmix*-*-* mep*-*-* bfin*-*-* v850*-*-* picochip*-*-* moxie*-*-* cris*-*-* m32c*-*-* fr30*-*-* mcore*-*-* powerpc*-*-* xtensa*-*-* hppa*-*-*"} } } */
+/* { dg-do run { target { ! "m68k*-*-* mmix*-*-* mep*-*-* bfin*-*-* v850*-*-* picochip*-*-* moxie*-*-* cris*-*-* m32c*-*-* fr30*-*-* mcore*-*-* powerpc*-*-* xtensa*-*-* hppa*-*-* nios2*-*-*"} } } */
see your patch for them. Can you change the patch effectively to:
-/* { dg-do run { target { ! "m68k*-*-* mmix*-*-* mep*-*-* bfin*-*-* v850*-*-* picochip*-*-* moxie*-*-* cris*-*-* m32c*-*-* fr30*-*-* mcore*-*-* powerpc*-*-* xtensa*-*-* hppa*-*-*"} } } */
+/* non default branch cost */
+/* { dg-do run { target { ! "m68k*-*-* mmix*-*-* mep*-*-* bfin*-*-* v850*-*-* picochip*-*-* moxie*-*-* cris*-*-* m32c*-*-* fr30*-*-* mcore*-*-* powerpc*-*-* xtensa*-*-* hppa*-*-* nios2*-*-*"} } } */
instead? The comment serves as documentation as to what all the listed targets have in common. A person doing a new port, can then read the comment, and say I am non-default branch cost, so add me, or alternatively, I am the default, this failure is a bug I need to investigate and fix.
> I definitely agree about this. Perhaps the tree-ssa maintainers can take care of this,
I added law as he added one of the test cases. :-)
> or at least clarify what target(s) this is intended to work on rather than having to experimentally determine which ones don't implement these optimizations, or propose some way to test for the support rather than having to list targets explicitly.
I’d be fine with the entire list changing to the one target that the test case was put in for. That would be better than how it is now.