This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [committed] Skip 20101011-1.c for MIPS16 Linux-based targets
- From: Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford at googlemail dot com>
- To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro at linux-mips dot org>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 22:33:52 +0000
- Subject: Re: [committed] Skip 20101011-1.c for MIPS16 Linux-based targets
- References: <878vyky0nc.fsf@firetop.home> <alpine.LFD.2.00.1102240154070.31425@eddie.linux-mips.org>
"Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@linux-mips.org> writes:
> On Sun, 16 Jan 2011, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/20101011-1.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/20101011-1.c 2011-01-16 21:32:28.000000000 +0000
>> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/20101011-1.c 2011-01-16 21:53:10.000000000 +0000
>> @@ -18,6 +18,10 @@
>> true of other bare-metal environments, so restrict the test to
>> systems that use the Linux kernel. */
>> # define DO_TEST 0
>> +#elif defined (__mips16) && defined(__linux__)
>> + /* Not all Linux kernels deal correctly the breakpoints generated by
>> + MIPS16 divisions by zero. They show up as a SIGTRAP instead. */
>> +# define DO_TEST 0
>> #else
>> # define DO_TEST 1
>> #endif
>
> Hopefully this can be reenabled sometime in the future... And that's
> actually a good test too even as it is. If the kernel can't handle BREAK
> exceptions correctly, then chances are it doesn't handle other MIPS16
> stuff either, making all the test results questionable in the first place.
This is a compiler testcase, not a kernel testcase. And I don't agree
that failure to handle division by zero traps correctly makes all the
other GCC test results questionable.
I'm confident that the testcase in its current form is still good
enough to test what it was originally designed to test, even for MIPS.
Richard