This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH, testsuite] Fix some testcases for nds32 target and provide new nds32 target specific tests
- From: Chung-Ju Wu <jasonwucj at gmail dot com>
- To: Mike Stump <mikestump at comcast dot net>
- Cc: gcc patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 12:22:35 +0800
- Subject: Re: [PATCH, testsuite] Fix some testcases for nds32 target and provide new nds32 target specific tests
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CADj25HPvYMaqN=LdRH8c4kBV7Zfz0yZdYySQEcs6ktPcW_aRHw at mail dot gmail dot com> <F7DA2F03-2364-4EF0-A5A7-C7198078D0B6 at comcast dot net> <529C84DD dot 4030909 at gmail dot com> <47107691-7912-46F4-AE82-6D314636F04D at comcast dot net>
2013/12/3 Mike Stump <mikestump@comcast.net>:
> On Dec 2, 2013, at 5:02 AM, Chung-Ju Wu <jasonwucj@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Perhaps I should have used the following description, which seems much better:
>>
>> +/* { dg-skip-if "Variadic funcs have all args on stack. Normal funcs have args in registers." { nds32*-*-* } "*" "" } */
>
> Reads nicely, thanks. Also, if I do a port, and this test case fails, and I read that and those facts apply to my port, I can just effortlessly go that direction. To me, this is the best use of this information. Secondary would be if people wanted to do a target_supports, it would be more clear to the untrained why it was done in the first place.
Thanks for the guidance.
I learned how to make a better description for a test case. :-)
And thanks for the approval,
the revised patch is now applied as Rev. 205625:
http://gcc.gnu.org/r205625
Best regards,
jasonwucj