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 RFC] Tweak gcc.c-torture/execute/nest-align-1.c

From: Kaz Kojima <kkojima at rr dot iij4u dot or dot jp>
To: ddaney at avtrex dot com
Cc: janis187 at us dot ibm dot com, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, joey dot ye at intel dot com, rsandifo at nildram dot co dot uk
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:14:17 +0900 (JST)
Subject: Re: [patch RFC] Tweak gcc.c-torture/execute/nest-align-1.c
References: <20080223.092349.77036332.kkojima@rr.iij4u.or.jp> <1203987632.6955.9.camel@janis-laptop> <47C36ED9.8070806@avtrex.com>

David Daney <ddaney@avtrex.com> wrote:
> Note that Richard Sandiford fixed the failure on mips by not running the 
> test on that target.
> 
> If we are fixing the test so that it passes (or should pass) on all 
> targets, Richard's patch should probably be reverted.

Sure.  Could you please confirm that the revised testcase works
on mips?

> An alternative to Kaz's patch would be to add SH and ARM to the targets 
> that don't run the test.

I've found that it failed also on s390, m32c and cris testresults.
If those fails go away with the revised patch, I'd like to propose
reverting Richard's patch.

Regards,
	kaz

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [patch RFC] Tweak gcc.c-torture/execute/nest-align-1.c
  - From: Richard Sandiford

References:
- [patch RFC] Tweak gcc.c-torture/execute/nest-align-1.c
  - From: Kaz Kojima
- Re: [patch RFC] Tweak gcc.c-torture/execute/nest-align-1.c
  - From: Janis Johnson
- Re: [patch RFC] Tweak gcc.c-torture/execute/nest-align-1.c
  - From: David Daney

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