This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Testsuite] Fix arm triplets in some testcases.
- From: James Greenhalgh <james dot greenhalgh at arm dot com>
- To: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Cc: ramana dot radhakrishnan at arm dot com
- Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 11:32:08 +0100
- Subject: [Testsuite] Fix arm triplets in some testcases.
Hi,
Some ARM triplets are of the form armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf.
For these arm-*-* will not match, so fix this with arm*-*-*.
Nor will arm*-*-*eabi, so fix this with arm*-*-*eabi*.
Tested with a run of the affected tests on an
armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf target, showing FAIL->PASS.
OK?
Thanks,
James
---
gcc/testsuite
2013-06-05 James Greenhalgh <james.greenhalgh@arm.com>
* gcc.dg/fshort-wchar.c: Add extra dg-options for
arm*-*-*eabi* targets.
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c: Change dg-final to catch
arm*-*-* targets.
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr43491.c: Likewise.
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/fshort-wchar.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/fshort-wchar.c
index c9c7515..bb69881 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/fshort-wchar.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/fshort-wchar.c
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
/* { dg-do run } */
/* { dg-options "-fshort-wchar" } */
-/* { dg-options "-fshort-wchar -Wl,--no-wchar-size-warning" { target arm*-*-*eabi } } */
+/* { dg-options "-fshort-wchar -Wl,--no-wchar-size-warning" { target arm*-*-*eabi* } } */
/* Source: Neil Booth, 10 Dec 2002.
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c
index d01b8ab..520c357 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c
@@ -35,6 +35,6 @@ Cyc_string_ungetc (int ignore, struct _fat_ptr *sptr)
/* Whether the structs are totally scalarized or not depends on the
MOVE_RATIO macro defintion in the back end. The scalarization will
not take place when using small values for MOVE_RATIO. */
-/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "struct _fat_ptr _ans" 0 "optimized" { target { ! "arm-*-* powerpc*-*-* s390*-*-* sh*-*-*" } } } } */
-/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "struct _fat_ptr _T2" 0 "optimized" { target { ! "arm-*-* powerpc*-*-* s390*-*-* sh*-*-*" } } } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "struct _fat_ptr _ans" 0 "optimized" { target { ! "arm*-*-* powerpc*-*-* s390*-*-* sh*-*-*" } } } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "struct _fat_ptr _T2" 0 "optimized" { target { ! "arm*-*-* powerpc*-*-* s390*-*-* sh*-*-*" } } } } */
/* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "optimized" } } */
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr43491.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr43491.c
index 2473400..44dc5f2 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr43491.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr43491.c
@@ -37,6 +37,6 @@ long foo(long data, long v)
}
/* We should not eliminate global register variable when it is the RHS of
a single assignment. */
-/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Eliminated: 2" 1 "pre" { target { arm-*-* i?86-*-* mips*-*-* x86_64-*-* } } } } */
-/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Eliminated: 3" 1 "pre" { target { ! { arm-*-* i?86-*-* mips*-*-* x86_64-*-* } } } } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Eliminated: 2" 1 "pre" { target { arm*-*-* i?86-*-* mips*-*-* x86_64-*-* } } } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Eliminated: 3" 1 "pre" { target { ! { arm*-*-* i?86-*-* mips*-*-* x86_64-*-* } } } } } */
/* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "pre" } } */