This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: gcc 4.3.0 i386 default question


> David Edelsohn wrote:
> >>>>>>Joel Sherrill writes:
> >>>>>>            
> >
> >Joel> Those all look like checks to see if the compiler itself
> >Joel> supports Altivec -- not a run-time check on the hardware
> >Joel> like the Neon check_effective_target_arm_neon_hw appears
> >Joel> to be.
> >
> >        Look at check_vmx_hw_available again.
> >  
> Whoops.  That one does indeed check it.  And the RTEMS
> target has an ugly exception.  The next set of failures below
> that point are not altivec related.   I see a block of failures
> like this:
> 
> FAIL: gcc.misc-tests/bprob-1.c execution: file bprob-1.gcda does not 
> exist,  -fprofile-arcs
> 
> And this:
> 
> FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/405-mullhw-1.c scan-assembler mullhw
> 
> Are those things which would be expected to fail on a vanilla
> 603e target without networking or disk?

branch probability test expect the testcase to output a profile during
execution, so unless you have gcov runtime support I guess it is
expected.  I dunno about mullhw.

Honza
> 
> Is this another category of tests to avoid somehow?
> 
> -joel
> >David
> >
> >  
> 
> 
> -- 
> Joel Sherrill, Ph.D.             Director of Research & Development
> joel.sherrill@OARcorp.com        On-Line Applications Research
> Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS  Huntsville AL 35805
>   Support Available             (256) 722-9985
> 


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