This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFA: MIPS paired single support
- From: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>
- To: wilson at specifixinc dot com
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 20:15:48 -0400
- Subject: Re: RFA: MIPS paired single support
- References: <3CB54817FDF733459B230DD27C690CEC041C22@Exchange.MIPS.COM> <873c23g7z1.fsf@redhat.com> <1093988074.7528.202.camel@aretha.corp.specifixinc.com> <200408312149.i7VLnLCf010477@greed.delorie.com> <1093992047.7528.214.camel@aretha.corp.specifixinc.com>
> OK. Sounds reasonable, but it isn't very well specified.
I know, I don't think we have a spec for what goes in the
target-specific subdirectories. It varies with each target what kind
of things we're looking for and trying to test. For example, for
xstormy16 I need to check for the presense of certain opcodes in the
assembler *and* for proper execution, so I had to do something a
little custom.
> I think it would make more sense if I could see an example. Are you
> using the dg-* commands?
Half use c-torture, half use gcc-dg.
> Do you still have target tests in individual testcase .c files?
Some do, some don't. The xstormy16 test has a directory tree full of
individual dg tests, plus some common sources. Another I have in the
works has one executable built of a couple of sources (each compiled a
different way to test compatibility) that internally runs many tests,
with a custom driver (we'd want a second .exp if we added dg to that
directory).
> Do you have multiple .exp files in each <cpu> directory?
Not at the moment, but I don't see why it wouldn't be allowed, if only
to make maintenance easier. IMHO being target-specific directories,
it's understandable that you'd need to do unique things sometimes.
I'm thinking of the gas testsuite, which has multiple .exp's per
target. It's (arguably) a bit messier than the gcc testsuite, but it
demonstrates that different targets have different testsuite needs.
> Is there an established convention for which one is better? Are
> there established conventions on how to write the <foo>.exp files?
No to both, because so far each target has had different needs.
> If Red Hat adds the first one, then I could make the mips one work the
> same way.
Since our aren't consistent, I suggest just using plain gcc-dg or
c-torture, whichever makes the most sense. Or pick one (dg?) and make
that the rule for new targets.
> There is also the question of whether Red Hat might already have a
> gcc.target/mips directory. If so, I don't want to conflict with it.
[checks] Nope.