marking ppc440 tests as unsupported

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:10:18AM -0600, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> The unfortunate thing is that I think these
> tests are really ensuring that MASK_DLMZB is
> used as expected.  If this is right, then
> shouldn't there be a cpp predefine similar
> to __NO_LWSYNC__ for dlmzb?  And the tests use
> that rather than testing for a specific CPU model?

This doesn't answer what you should do now, but I can explain the
precedent: the only reason there is a predefine for 405 is so that the
atomicity routines in libstdc++ know to avoid lwsync.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery