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] Minor fixes for regtesting gfortran with -flto


> Probably, alpha is not the only one that fails this assumption.

Indeed! see the thread starting at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2014-05/msg00127.html

Could you test the following patch

--- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/bind_c_array_params_2.f90	2014-05-24 16:17:53.000000000 +0200
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/bind_c_array_params_2.f90	2014-05-29 11:34:40.000000000 +0200
@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ integer :: aa(4,4)
 call test(aa)
 end
 
-! { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "call\[^\n\r\]*myBindC" 1 { target { ! { hppa*-*-hpux* } } } } }
-! { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "call\[^\n\r\]*myBindC,%r2" 1 { target { hppa*-*-hpux* } } } }
+! { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "\[ \t\]\[$,_0-9\]*myBindC" 1 { target { ! { hppa*-*-hpux* } } } } }
+! { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "\[ \t\]\[$,_0-9\]*myBindC,%r2" 1 { target { hppa*-*-hpux* } } } }
 ! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "test \\\(&parm\\." 1 "original" } }
 ! { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "original" } }

with

make -k check-gfortran RUNTESTFLAGS="dg.exp=bind_c_array_params_2.f90 --target_board=unix'{-m32,-m64,-m32/-flto,-m64/-flto}'"

Can you pre-approved it?

TIA

Dominique


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