On 06/24/2011 03:29 AM, Tom de Vries wrote: > On 06/24/2011 12:07 AM, Janis Johnson wrote: >> On 06/23/2011 02:56 PM, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: >>> On 23 June 2011 22:36, Janis Johnson <jani...@codesourcery.com> wrote: >>>> Tests gcc.target/arm/ivopts*.c add -mthumb but fail on targets without >>>> thumb support; skip those targets. The tests save temporary files and >>>> need to remove them at the end, easily done with cleanup-saved-temps. >>>> >>>> Test ivopts-6.c is the only one of the set that does not require thumb2 >>>> support in the check for object-size, and it fails for -march=iwmmxt >>>> and iwmmxt2; the check should probably be used on that test as well, >>>> although I haven't included it here. >>> >>> I'm not sure I understand the change for ivopts-6.c : >>> >>> It's skipping if there is no Thumb support by default but the test >>> assumes the test will run with -marm on the command line ? >>> >>> Ramana >> >> Oops, I got carried away and didn't notice that it uses -marm rather >> than -mthumb. I'll take another look at that one. >> >> Janis > > How about this patch? I removed all -mthumb/-marm option settings, and instead > focused on trying to guard the object-size tests properly. > > I introduced 2 new arm-related effective targets to accomplish this. > - arm_thumb2: Tests if we're compiling for thumb2. > - arm_nothumb: Tests if we're not compiling for any thumb. > I don't know how to get the same effect with the existing arm-related > effective > targets.
That looks good to me, and those effective targets will be very useful. Reviewers, is Tom's patch OK? Janis
