Re: gcc 4.3.0 i386 default question

[Joel Sherrill <joel dot sherrill at oarcorp dot com>]

Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > David Edelsohn wrote:
> >     
> > > > > > > > Joel Sherrill writes:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >                 
> > > Joel> Those all look like checks to see if the compiler itself
> > > Joel> supports Altivec -- not a run-time check on the hardware
> > > Joel> like the Neon check_effective_target_arm_neon_hw appears
> > > Joel> to be.
> > >
> > >        Look at check_vmx_hw_available again.
> > >
> > >       
> > Whoops.  That one does indeed check it.  And the RTEMS
> > target has an ugly exception.  The next set of failures below
> > that point are not altivec related.   I see a block of failures
> > like this:
> >
> > FAIL: gcc.misc-tests/bprob-1.c execution: file bprob-1.gcda does not
> > exist,  -fprofile-arcs
> >
> > And this:
> >
> > FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/405-mullhw-1.c scan-assembler mullhw
> >
> > Are those things which would be expected to fail on a vanilla
> > 603e target without networking or disk?
> >     
>
> branch probability test expect the testcase to output a profile during
> execution, so unless you have gcov runtime support I guess it is
> expected.  I dunno about mullhw.
>   

There are only two as best I can tell so this isn't the worst
thing contaminating the results. But if there is a way to
mark that gcov is not available I would be happy to pursue
implementing it or (better) testing it.

--joel