On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Kyrill Tkachov <kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com> wrote: > > On 07/08/14 10:43, Bin Cheng wrote: >> >> Hi, >> Case pr61772.c scans specific string in assembly file, and it is run for >> many different option combinations. When it's tested against different >> lto >> option combinations on targets like ARM, the generated pr61772.s may only >> contain lto object content, rather than assembly codes. The scanning >> check >> is failed in these cases. >> I think disabling lto won't weaken the test since what it tests has >> nothing >> to do with lto. This patch fixes these failures by disabling lto. >> >> Is it OK? > > > Hi Bin, > > Do you think it would be better to just add -ffat-lto-objects instead? That > way the output would contain the assembly as well. Example patch attached. > > We might want check that LTO doesn't optimise the assembly away? Not actually. It's a compilation time test and IMHO if-conversion optimization here has nothing to do with lto. Another reason here is we can't just add a single lto option without support full lto testing. Consider scenario testing on a target without lto? Please correct if I was wrong.
Thanks, bin > > Kyrill > > >> Thanks, >> bin >> >> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog >> 2014-08-07 Bin Cheng <bin.ch...@arm.com> >> >> * gcc.dg/torture/pr61772.c: Skip lto running.
