RE: [PATCH] Allow MIPS call-saved-{4-6}.c tests to correctly run for micromips

["Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro at linux-mips dot org>]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2015, Matthew Fortune wrote:

> > >> I have tested this for both mips and micromips, and the tests now
> > >> pass successfully.
> > >> The ChangeLog and patch are below.
> > >
> > >  Hmm, instead of trying to avoid testing microMIPS code generation
> > > just to satisfy the test suite I'd rather see the test cases updated
> > > so that LWM/SWM register ranges are expected and accepted whenever
> > > microMIPS code is produced.  These scan patterns can be made
> > conditional.
> > 
> > FWIW I think Andrew's patch is correct.  If we want to test microMIPS
> > output against micromips-specific regexps, we should add a separate test
> > that forces micromips, so that it gets tested regardless of people's
> > RUNTESTFLAGS.  Doing that shouldn't hold up Andrew's patch though.

 Taking care that the default compilation mode does not conflict (e.g. 
MIPS16, incompatible) and taking any exceptions into account (e.g. n64, 
unsupported) I presume, right?

> > Whereever possible gcc.target/mips should not have conditional dg-
> > finals.

 OK, if that's been the policy.

> I was going to suggest a follow up patch to add copies of the three tests
> as Richard suggests. I haven't yet done a micromips run of the testsuite
> to check for any other issues like this but I suspect problems are limited
> to the tests that I recently added.

 Please always try to test changes reasonably, i.e. at least o32, 
o32/MIPS16, o32/microMIPS, n32, n64, and then Linux and ELF if applicable, 
plus any options that may be relevant, unless it is absolutely clear 
ABI/ISA variations do not matter for a change proposed.  Running 
regression tests is just processing time after all (cheap!), you don't 
have to spend your brain cycles on it (expensive!).

  Maciej