Kyrylo Tkachov <kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com> writes: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Andrea Corallo <andrea.cora...@arm.com> >> Sent: 19 January 2021 17:13 >> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org >> Cc: Kyrylo Tkachov <kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com>; Richard Earnshaw >> <richard.earns...@arm.com>; nd <n...@arm.com>; >> christophe.l...@linaro.org >> Subject: [PATCH] arm: [testuiste] fix ivopts.c target test [PR96372] >> >> Hi all, >> >> this patch is for PR96372, the fail was introduced by [1] where the >> failing check went from using target 'arm_thumb2' to >> 'arm_thumb2_ok_no_arm_v8_1_lob'. Unfortunately this is relying on >> 'arm_thumb2_ok' that has a different semantic compared to the original >> 'arm_thumb2'. >> >> This patch is introducing then 'arm_thumb2_no_arm_v8_1_lob' relying on >> 'arm_thumb2' to restore the intended behavior. >> >> Okay for trunk? >> > > We usually try to avoid having such negative options (target-no-feature). > Dejagnu can use "!" to indicate negation of a target, can you use that? > > Thanks, > Kyrill
Hi Kyrill, thanks for reviewing. Not sure I get the suggestion: here 'arm_thumb2_no_arm_v8_1_lob' stands for 'arm_thumb2' positive and 'arm_v8_1_lob' negative. Similarly we already have 'target_arm_thumb2_ok_no_arm_v8_1_lob'. Am I missing something? Andrea
