This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Patch, testsuite]: Allow MicroBlaze .weakext pattern in regex match
- From: Mike Stump <mikestump at comcast dot net>
- To: David Holsgrove <david dot holsgrove at xilinx dot com>
- Cc: "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "Michael Eager (eager at eagerm dot com)" <eager at eagerm dot com>, Vidhumouli Hunsigida <vidhum at xilinx dot com>, Nagaraju Mekala <nmekala at xilinx dot com>, John Williams <jwilliams at xilinx dot com>, Edgar Iglesias <edgari at xilinx dot com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 00:01:10 -0800
- Subject: Re: [Patch, testsuite]: Allow MicroBlaze .weakext pattern in regex match
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <2f748e41-9d19-4217-8bb8-58ee8726f3ae at VA3EHSMHS046 dot ehs dot local>
On Feb 13, 2014, at 10:07 PM, David Holsgrove <david.holsgrove@xilinx.com> wrote:
> I've attached a patch to extend the regex pattern to include optional 'ext' at the end of
> '.weak' to match the MicroBlaze weak label '.weakext' in two of the g++ test cases.
I don’t feel strongly either way. I'd like think weak(_definition)?(ext)?….. is good enough, as this test doesn’t much care beyond that.
spec34 does:
{ dg-final { scan-assembler ".weak(_definition)?\[\t \]*_?_Z2f2IiEvT_”
for example. Which I think is fairly readable/maintainable.
Let’s give others that might disagree with me an opportunity to do so… I’m happy to defer to anyone that has a stronger opinion than mine. If no one steps forward, I’ll ok either way you want to go.
Wearing my hat as darwin/testsuite maintainer. :-)