On 02.05.2016 23:28, Oleg Endo wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-05-02 at 16:13 +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>> On 05/02/2016 03:43 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>> Yes, you are right. Only the original use-case seems to be
>>> sh-superh-elf specific. But there are also spec strings
>>> that are always available. I think adding -DFOO to
>>> "cpp_unique_options" will work on any target, and make the
>>> test case even more useful.
>>>
>>>
>>> So is the updated patch OK?
>>
>> If that passes testing on non-sh, yes.
>
> It seems that test case doesn't work on sh4-linux. There's a new
> failure:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2016-05/msg00089.html
>
> FAIL: gcc.dg/spec-options.c execution test
>
No, I actually fixed it, thanks. That test was done without my patch:
> LAST_UPDATED: Sun May 1 13:46:11 UTC 2016 (revision 235692)
svn log -r235762
------------------------------------------------------------------------
r235762 | edlinger | 2016-05-02 16:41:25 +0200 (Mo, 02. Mai 2016) | 5 Zeilen
2016-05-02 Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de>
* gcc.dg/spec-options.c: Run the test on all targets.
* gcc.dg/foo.specs: Use cpp_unique_options.
You see: 235692 < 235762
As I said the test case _was_ bogus from the beginning, and would
_only_ pass for sh*-superh-elf target, but it was never passing for
--target=sh4-unknown-linux-gnu. However we were not aware of that
fact, because the dejagnu bug masked that until the two contradicting
dg-do rules were swapped.
I'd bet that the rest of the handful of testcases where two different
dg-do statements are used, are also bogus, because they have never been
executed due to the dejagu-bug, and they are written differently than
all the other tests.
Bernd.
