On Fri, 25 Apr 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 09:20:50PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > > > PR tree-optimization/60930 > > > * gcc.dg/torture/pr60930.c: New test. > > Doesn't the test depend on long long being at least 64 bits? > > But that is guaranteed by C99, isn't it?
But the testcase isn't built with -std=c99. > 5.2.4.2.1 says: > > ... Their implementation-defined values shall be equal or greater in magnitude > (absolute value) to those shown, with the same sign. > ... > - maximum value for an object of type unsigned long long int ULLONG_MAX > 18446744073709551615 // 2 64 − 1 > > > > What we've done for these kinds of tests in the past is: > > > > if (sizeof (whatever) < needed size) > > exit (0); > > > > Another approach would be to use an effective target test and skip > > the test if the target doesn't have a suitable long long. Look in > > testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp for the various target > > If it was some other type, sure, one could use int32plus, lp64, etc. > target, or #if __SIZEOF_type__ == ... I suggest the latter (#if). Ok with that change. Thanks, Richard.
