This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH testcase]Skip test pr61772.c for lto tests
- From: "Bin.Cheng" <amker dot cheng at gmail dot com>
- To: Kyrill Tkachov <kyrylo dot tkachov at arm dot com>
- Cc: Bin Cheng <bin dot cheng at arm dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 16:24:15 +0800
- Subject: Re: [PATCH testcase]Skip test pr61772.c for lto tests
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <000a01cfb224$0ebb81d0$2c328570$ at arm dot com> <53E484B2 dot 10309 at arm dot com>
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Kyrill Tkachov <kyrylo.tkachov@arm.com> wrote:
>
> On 07/08/14 10:43, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> Case pr61772.c scans specific string in assembly file, and it is run for
>> many different option combinations. When it's tested against different
>> lto
>> option combinations on targets like ARM, the generated pr61772.s may only
>> contain lto object content, rather than assembly codes. The scanning
>> check
>> is failed in these cases.
>> I think disabling lto won't weaken the test since what it tests has
>> nothing
>> to do with lto. This patch fixes these failures by disabling lto.
>>
>> Is it OK?
>
>
> Hi Bin,
>
> Do you think it would be better to just add -ffat-lto-objects instead? That
> way the output would contain the assembly as well. Example patch attached.
>
> We might want check that LTO doesn't optimise the assembly away?
Not actually. It's a compilation time test and IMHO if-conversion
optimization here has nothing to do with lto. Another reason here is
we can't just add a single lto option without support full lto
testing. Consider scenario testing on a target without lto? Please
correct if I was wrong.
Thanks,
bin
>
> Kyrill
>
>
>> Thanks,
>> bin
>>
>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
>> 2014-08-07 Bin Cheng <bin.cheng@arm.com>
>>
>> * gcc.dg/torture/pr61772.c: Skip lto running.