Oleg Endo <oleg.e...@t-online.de> 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
It looks there is a glitch of my sh4-linux test system and foo.specs
wasn't updated correctly:
-rw-rw-r--. 1 kkojima dodes 30 Jun 2 2012 gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/foo.specs
With updating svn trunk again, I've got
-rw-r--r--. 1 kkojima dodes 38 May 3 10:05 gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/foo.specs
and "make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="dg.exp=spec-options.c"" gives
=== gcc Summary ===
# of expected passes 2
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Regards,
kaz
