On 8/7/19 5:15 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > This test is reported as UNSUPPORTED when it runs on x86_64 > and I expect everywhere else except hppa-*-*. There's nothing > PA-RISC specific in it that I can see and it runs successfully, > so I'm thinking I'll enable it everywhere just to get rid of > the UNSUPPORTED result. > > Jeff, it's a test you added back in 1997. If you can think > of a reason not to enable it please let me know, otherwise > I'll go ahead with it as obvious. > Actually I added it in 1995, 1997 is when we moved to a real VCS for GCC development :-)
+Thu Jun 1 00:06:19 1995 Jeff Law (l...@snake.cs.utah.edu) + + * gcc.c-torture/compile/950512-1.c: New test. + * gcc.c-torture/execute/strct-pack-4.c, strct-pack-5.c}: Likewise. + * gcc.dg/struct-ret-1.c: Likewise. Given the date and the contents of the test I suspect it won't necessarily work on PCC_STATIC_STRUCT_RETURN targets which we still cared about that the time. Structure returns in general were problematical and I was probably just being very conservative. One could argue that PCC_STATIC_STRUCT_RETURN should just go away. There's only two ports using it. One is the m68k-openbsd port which I think has been dead for several years and could probably just be deprecated and removed. The other is the vax -- I have no idea how hard it would be for them to drop PCC_STATIC_STRUCT_RETURN since I don't know their ABI stability concerns or need for compatibility with ancient vax compilers. So, no objections to the change. Worst case is the vax guys would see a failure for that test. If they complain we can open the discussion about dropping PCC_STATIC_STRUCT_RETURN. jeff
