This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [testsuite] Adding missing dg-require-profiling directives
- From: Chung-Lin Tang <cltang at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Mike Stump <mikestump at comcast dot net>
- Cc: Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford at googlemail dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 12:09:02 +0800
- Subject: Re: [testsuite] Adding missing dg-require-profiling directives
- References: <87sjl0efsa.fsf@firetop.home> <67D3C4DC-1922-4B69-BB7B-13CD6A1D53EE@comcast.net>
On 2011/12/5 12:39 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Dec 4, 2011, at 3:29 AM, Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> The problem is that MIPS has
>> native TLS support, but the ABI has not "yet" been extended to MIPS16.
>> MIPS16 is supposed to be link-compatible with non-MIPS16, so we can't
>> use emultls, and must simply say sorry().
>>
>> This patch adds dg-require-profiling to the affected tests. The reason
>> I haven't just applied it as obvious is that dg-require-profiling really
>> seems to be a test for link-time and runtime support. There are presumably
>> targets that can't link profiling code but that are nevertheless happily
>> compiling the tests below. So do we want to split the directive into two?
>> I ask the question while hoping the answer is "no". :-)
>
> Hum... I'd rather TLS support be defined and added for MIPS16... I think we have enough targets with profiling and TLS that coverage won't be lost with your change. I like simple. If someone feels strongly about splitting, I'll pre-approve their change. I think your patch is fine. Ok.
We already have a MIPS16 TLS implementation internally, I'll get it
ready to post here soon, though I'm afraid it's a next-stage1 kind of
modification (unless Richard has the rights to approve it at this stage?).
Thanks,
Chung-Lin