On 12 Dec 2011, at 15:47, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 04:20:57PM +0100, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
I'm fine with whatever you guys come up with...
Likewise. I have no preference. Whatever gets approved is ok
with me.
So let's pick the Iain's proposal:
Index: gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cxxbitfields-3.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cxxbitfields-3.c (revision 182177)
+++ gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cxxbitfields-3.c (working copy)
@@ -18,4 +18,5 @@ void setit()
var.j = 5;
}
-/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "movl.*, var" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "movl.*, _?var" { target { ! *-*-
darwin* } } } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "movl.*, (_?var|\\(%)" { target *-*-
darwin* } } } */
Only if *-*-darwin* is replaced with !nonpic, otherwise it will fail
say on x86_64-linux if people test with
RUNTESTFLAGS=--target_board=unix/-fpic
thus is everyone reasonably happy with?
Index: gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cxxbitfields-3.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cxxbitfields-3.c (revision 182219)
+++ gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cxxbitfields-3.c (working copy)
@@ -18,4 +18,5 @@ void setit()
var.j = 5;
}
-/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "movl.*, var" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "movl.*, _?var" { target nonpic } } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "movl.*, (_?var|\\(%)" { target { !
nonpic } } } } */
