Tests gcc.target/powerpc/20020118-1.c and
gcc.c-torture/execute/nest-align-1.c sometimes fail because they expect
a stack alignment that is greater than that required for powerpc-eabi.
This patch forces stack alignment to 128 bits by passing "-mno-eabi".
Is this OK for mainline and the 4.8 branch, or would it be better to
skip these tests for powerpc-*-eabi*?
Janis
2013-07-08 Janis Johnson <jani...@codesourcery.com>
* gcc.target/powerpc/20020118-1.c: Force 128-bit stack alignment
for EABI targets.
* gcc.c-torture/execute/nest-align-1.x: Likewise.
Index: gcc.target/powerpc/20020118-1.c
===================================================================
--- gcc.target/powerpc/20020118-1.c (revision 200621)
+++ gcc.target/powerpc/20020118-1.c (working copy)
@@ -1,6 +1,8 @@
/* { dg-do run { target powerpc*-*-* } }*/
/* VxWorks only guarantees 64 bits of alignment (STACK_BOUNDARY == 64). */
/* { dg-skip-if "" { "powerpc*-*-vxworks*" } { "*" } { "" } } */
+/* Force 128-bit stack alignment for eabi targets. */
+/* { dg-options "-mno-eabi" { target powerpc*-*-eabi* } } */
/* Test local alignment. Test new target macro STARTING_FRAME_PHASE. */
/* Origin: Aldy Hernandez <al...@redhat.com>. */
Index: gcc.c-torture/execute/nest-align-1.x
===================================================================
--- gcc.c-torture/execute/nest-align-1.x (revision 0)
+++ gcc.c-torture/execute/nest-align-1.x (revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+# Force bigger stack alignment for PowerPC EABI targets.
+if { [istarget "powerpc-*-eabi*"] } {
+ set additional_flags "-mno-eabi"
+}
+return 0
