dg-add-options ieee ?

Jeff Law law@redhat.com
Sat Nov 3 10:21:00 GMT 2018

On 10/31/18 3:27 PM, Rainer Orth wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>>> On Oct 31, 2018, at 4:11 PM, Rainer Orth <ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> wrote:
>>> Hi Paul,
>>>> Ok, thanks.  So adding a dg-skip-if for my target is indeed correct.
>>>> Will do so.
>>> please don't: since this is going to be common, please add a
>>> corresponding effective-target keyword instead, together with
>>> sourcebuild.texi documentation.  That's far more expressive than
>>> explicit target lists.
>>> Thanks.
>>>        Rainer
>> So you mean, add a new keyword (say, "ieee") to dg-effective-target that
>> means "run this test only on ieee targets"?
> right.
>> Another approach might be to have dg-add-options ieee mean what it does
>> today, but also have it skip the test for non-ieee capable targets.  Or is
>> that undesirable because it muddles the meaning of the dg-add-options
>> keyword?  I figure it would make sense because any test that has
>> dg-add-options ieee by definition should be skipped by any target that
>> can't do ieee at all.
> No, that's not how things are supposed to work.  Look at c99_runtime for
> example: we have both
> 	dg-require-effective-target c99_runtime
> which checks if the targets supports a C99 runtime, and
> 	dg-add-options c99_runtime
> to add special options for targets that need them.
> I've no idea why this isn't the case for ieee today.
Probably because we've buried a lot of the ieee specific stuff into


More information about the Gcc mailing list