On 06/08/11 22:51, Steve Ellcey wrote:
On Wed, 2011-06-08 at 22:19 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 01:16:26PM -0700, Steve Ellcey wrote:
On Wed, 2011-06-08 at 22:08 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 01:03:53PM -0700, Steve Ellcey wrote:
2011-06-08 Steve Ellcey <s...@cup.hp.com>
PR middle-end/49191
* lib/target-supports.exp (check_effective_target_strict_align): New.
* gcc.dg/memcpy-3.c: Add dg-require-effective-target strict_align.
Isn't the test backwards, i.e. doesn't
{ dg-require-effective-target strict_align }
actually mean !STRICT_ALIGNMENT?
You are right. What do you think I should do, reverse the test or just
rename it? I would be inclined to just rename it, maybe:
dg-require-effective-target non_strict_align
Yeah, either that, or reverse the test and then
{ dg-do run { target { !strict_align } } } */
(if that is the right syntax).
Jakub
Renaming it seems simpler. If we reverse the test, I can't just return
the result of check_no_compiler_messages, I need to save the result and
reverse the return value. Then in the actual tests we can't use
dg-require-effective-target but need to modify the dg-do line to do the
check and it will probably always include the '!' to (re-)negate the
check. It can be done but renaming the test seems a lot simpler.
I just happened to notice that the (no longer new) non_strict_align
keyword lacks both a comment in
target-supports.exp and documentation in sourcebuild.texi.
Could you please add both?
Thanks.
Rainer
