On 2016-01-11, at 10:56 AM, John David Anglin wrote: > On 2016-01-11 8:24 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 02:16:31PM +0100, Christophe Lyon wrote: >>>>> In any case, we have no_c99_libc_has_function on hpux and everything on >>>>> linux. So, I >>>>> don't think testing with function_c99_misc on hppa will show any >>>>> difference. >>>>> >>>>> Okay with function_c99_misc? >>>> Ok (but please make sure to adjust ChangeLog too). >>>> >>> This patch made gcc.dg/torture/builtin-integral-1.c FAIL on >>> bare metal targets (e.g. arm-non-eabi, aarch64-none-elf, >>> using Newlib). >>> The logs show link errors: >>> /ccOMzAOC.o: In function `test': >>> builtin-integral-1.c:(.text+0x3c): undefined reference to `link_failure' >>> collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status >> I'd say you want to either split that test into the double and float+long >> double functions and limit the latter only to c99_runtime targets >> (and add add_options_for_c99_runtime), or just guard the whole test >> with c99_runtime and add_options_for_c99_runtime. > Attached is untested patch implementing the latter option. I tend to think > there's not > much benefit in testing these tests on non c99 targets.
Committed. Dave -- John David Anglin dave.ang...@bell.net
