On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Chung-Lin Tang
<clt...@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On 12/9/27 6:25 AM, Janis Johnson wrote:
>> On 09/26/2012 01:58 AM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>>
>> +/* { dg-do compile } */
>> +/* { dg-options "-mthumb -O1 -march=armv5te -fno-omit-frame-pointer
>> -fno-forward-propagate" } */
>> +/* { dg-require-effective-target arm_thumb1_ok } */
>>
>> This test will fail to compile for test flags that conflict with
>> the -march option, and the specified -march option might be
>> overridden with similar options from other test flags. The problem
>> might have also been seen for other -march options. I recommend
>> leaving it off and omitting the dg-require so the test can be run
>> for more multilibs.
>
> I'm not sure, as the intent is to test a Thumb-1 case here. If the
> maintainers think we should adjust the testcase, I'm of course fine with it.
I think this is OK but you need to prune out the conflict warnings to
reduce annoyance for folks doing multilib testing and it does look
like more than one group.
Longer term I wonder if we should reorganise gcc.target/arm and indeed
gcc.target/aarch64 . Janis, do you have any other ideas ?
* to contain a torture script that goes through all combinations of
architectures and fpus' / arm / thumb for all the tests.
* another sub-level directory for such directed tests where multilib
options aren't applied which are essentially from regressions.
However I don't know of an easy way by which we can ignore said
multilib flags ?
Ramana
>
> And ping for the patch.
>
> Thanks,
> Chung-Lin
>
