This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: permit unary plus to be used with vector types
- From: "Dave Korn" <dk at artimi dot com>
- To: <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 17:24:06 +0100
- Subject: RE: permit unary plus to be used with vector types
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gcc-owner On Behalf Of Jan Beulich
> Sent: 18 May 2004 17:07
> Having put together these I'd like to understand three things:
>
> a) Since there doesn't seem to be a mechanism to generate source files
> from templates in the test suite, and since completely testing all
> possible combinations would require adding 460 files, what is
> the proper
> way to go? Add this large a set of files, or invent a mechanism to
> create source files on the fly from a template (or is there one and I
> failed to identify it)?
Is there some fundamentally deep reason why you couldn't either add or
generate (as the case may turn out to be) a single source file with 460
tests in it?
> b) Since there doesn't seem to be a way to re-use test sources from
> different branches of the tree, the above number would even further
> increase (i.e. these vector tests need to be in the execute branch to
> verify the compiler generates correct generic code, but they
> should also
> be in one of the possible places where they would just get
> compiled,
Nope, I think it's ok: if they fail to compile, they probably won't
execute either!
> just for certain architectures [which have some hardware support for
> vector mode operations]).
That can be done by specifying targets to include/exclude the tests from,
perhaps using the test-case-options-inside-comment-strings (as used in the
gcc.dg subtree, perhaps)? I know there's some way to make tests
target-specific, but don't fully know how it works.
> c) Since, in the case of having to add at least one full set of files
> in one of the subtrees, I'd like to also provide a script for
> automated
> updating of these source files: How does one specify (within a patch)
> that a certain file will need to be created with execute permission?
Isn't making the first line "#!/bin/sh" enough for most *nixen?
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....