On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 5:05 PM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 10:05:22AM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote: >> ... simplify some conditions and add i?86-*-* target where missing. >> >> 2016-11-01 Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com> >> >> * lib/target-supports.exp: Normalize order of i?86 and x86_64 targets. >> Whitespace fixes. > ... >> (check_effective_target_divmod): Add i?86-*-* target. > > This part likely broke > +FAIL: gcc.dg/divmod-1.c scan-tree-dump-times widening_mul "DIVMOD" 7 > +FAIL: gcc.dg/divmod-2.c scan-tree-dump-times widening_mul "DIVMOD" 7 > +FAIL: gcc.dg/divmod-3.c scan-tree-dump-times widening_mul "DIVMOD" 7 > +FAIL: gcc.dg/divmod-4.c scan-tree-dump-times widening_mul "DIVMOD" 7 > +FAIL: gcc.dg/divmod-6.c scan-tree-dump-times widening_mul "DIVMOD" 7 > on i686-linux (i.e. 32-bit).
No, this is expected (these tests already fail with x86_64 -m32 multilib). These will be fixed by [1]. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-10/msg02483.html Uros. > Dunno what exactly the tests are meant to test, most likely they just > need extra guards or something. Can be reproduced even on x86_64-linux > with > make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS='--target_board=unix\{-m32,-m64\} dg.exp=divmod*' > >> @@ -8110,7 +8090,7 @@ >> #TODO: Add checks for all targets that have either hardware divmod insn >> # or define libfunc for divmod. >> if { [istarget arm*-*-*] >> - || [istarget x86_64-*-*] } { >> + || [istarget i?86-*-*] || [istarget x86_64-*-*] } { >> return 1 >> } >> return 0 > > > Jakub
