On 02/02/2018 06:25 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: > On 19 June 2016 at 22:21, Mike Stump <mikest...@comcast.net> wrote: >> On Jun 18, 2016, at 12:31 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer >> <rep.dot....@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> A branch with a name matching scan-assembler pattern triggers >>> inappropriate FAIL. >> >>> The patch below adds -fno-ident if a testcase contains one of >>> scan-assembler, scan-assembler-not or scan-assembler-times. >> >> Kinda gross. I'd like to consensus build a little, as I don't know that I >> have a better solution than the solution you propose to fix the issue. I'd >> love it if one or more of Jacob, Law and Richard can chime in on direction >> here. I'll have to think about this some more and see if I can come up with >> something that I like better. >> >> If no one has a better solution, I'll approve the proposed solution. Let's >> give people a little time to chime in. > > Given the overwhelming silence this proposal has received, i take it > for granted that folks are thrilled and even up until now speechless > :) > > So how should we proceed with -fno-ident. > And, btw, -fno-file to inhibit .file directives for the same reason, > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-09/msg01785.html and all our > ugly filenames like gcc.target/powerpc/swps-p8-36.c which strive to > workaround the assembler-scans. > > All those non-automatic hacks like naming swap() tests swps-, > uglifying scan-patterns (which are not terribly straight forward to > read anyway even without uglifying them) are error prone and costly. > IMHO we should make sure time is spent for useful stuff and not be > wasted to fight our very own testsuite. > > -fno-ident ok for stage1? > What about -fno-file? Clever alternative suggestions? Don't care? I thought I ack'd this back in 2016? :-)
jeff
