This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH, testsuite] Fix g++.dg/pr67989.C test failure when running with -march or -mcpu
- From: Kyrill Tkachov <kyrylo dot tkachov at foss dot arm dot com>
- To: Thomas Preud'homme <thomas dot preudhomme at foss dot arm dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Richard Earnshaw <richard dot earnshaw at arm dot com>, Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana dot radhakrishnan at arm dot com>
- Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2016 09:15:15 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH, testsuite] Fix g++.dg/pr67989.C test failure when running with -march or -mcpu
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <11095502 dot M7ODFCTl7m at hardin dot shanghai dot arm dot com> <568B9F4A dot 9040506 at foss dot arm dot com> <2473751 dot Rhs2oJLPHV at hardin dot shanghai dot arm dot com>
On 07/01/16 07:34, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
On Tuesday, January 05, 2016 10:47:38 AM Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi Thomas,
Hi Kyrill,
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr67989.C
b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr67989.C index
90261c450b4b9429fb989f7df62f3743017c7363..61be8e172a96df5bb76f7ecd8543dadf
825e7dc7 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr67989.C
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr67989.C
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
/* { dg-do compile } */
/* { dg-options "-std=c++11 -O2" } */
+/* { dg-skip-if "do not override -mcpu" { arm*-*-* } { "-march=*"
"-mcpu=*" } { "-march=armv4t" } } */
/* { dg-additional-options "-marm -march=armv4t" { target arm*-*-* } }
*/
How about we try to do it using the add_options_for_arm_arch_v4t machinery
and the arm_arch_v4t_ok check?
I don't quite understand. dg-add-options doesn't take a selector according to
GCC internals documentation and dg-additional-options doesn't take feature. If
I use dg-add-options with a require-effective-target that will limit this test
to ARM.
Did I misunderstand your point?
Humph, you're right. I thought that dg-add-options could take a target selector.
In this case perhaps we should go the route of just removing the target-specific option
altogether.
Richard, that's the approach you recommended, right?
Thanks,
Kyrill
Best regards,
Thomas