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: What should we do with gcc.target/i386/pr12329.c?

From: "hjl.tools" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
To: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 08:53:25 -0700
Subject: Re: What should we do with gcc.target/i386/pr12329.c?
References: <6dc9ffc80909230917h33245e2ch7ff376bac3c50d69@mail.gmail.com> <4ABA5C6C.8030502@redhat.com>

On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 09/23/2009 09:17 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Since we now allow regparm(3) for nested functions,
>> gcc.target/i386/pr12329.c
>> fails. Should we remove it or change it into run-time test for both
>> ilp32 and lp64?
>
> A runtime test that both direct and indirect invocations of foo succeed.
>

Here is a patch.  OK for trunk?

Thanks.


-- 
H.J.
---
2009-09-24  H.J. Lu  <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>

	* gcc.target/i386/pr12329.c (dg-do): Changed to run.
	(test_nested): Renamed to ...
	(test_nested1): This.
	(test_nested2): New.
	(main): Likewise.

Attachment: gcc-bar-1.patch
Description: Text document

Follow-Ups:
- Re: What should we do with gcc.target/i386/pr12329.c?
  - From: Richard Henderson

References:
- What should we do with gcc.target/i386/pr12329.c?
  - From: H.J. Lu
- Re: What should we do with gcc.target/i386/pr12329.c?
  - From: Richard Henderson

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