On 09/25/2014 04:48 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote: > On 09/25/2014 02:04 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote: >> While doing some arm-none-eabi testing, I noticed that a bunch of >> gcc.dg/vect tests were causing the target to hang from trying to execute >> code compiled with "-mfpu=neon -mfloat-abi=softfp", on a target that >> doesn't support those instructions. And, this was caused by tests >> specifying "dg-do run" unconditionally instead of allowing the >> dg-require-effective-target mechanism to decide whether the target can >> run code compiled with the vectorization options added by vect.exp. >> >> This patch fixes the bad tests. OK to check in? > > Janis pointed out to me off-list that I did not need to add new > dg-require-effective-target stuff; the run vs. just compile decision is > made by vect.exp independently of that. Here's a revised patch. Is > this one OK to check in? > > -Sandra >
Yes. Tests in directories that have checks to determine whether the default for "dg-do" should be "run" or "compile", like those in gcc.dg/vect, should never specify "dg-do run". Janis > > 2014-09-25 Sandra Loosemore <san...@codesourcery.com> > > gcc/testsuite/ > * gcc.dg/vect/pr56933.c: Don't specify "dg-do run" explicitly. > * gcc.dg/vect/pr57705.c: Likewise. > * gcc.dg/vect/pr57741-2.c: Likewise. > * gcc.dg/vect/pr57741-3.c: Likewise. > * gcc.dg/vect/pr59591-1.c: Likewise. > * gcc.dg/vect/pr59591-2.c: Likewise. > * gcc.dg/vect/pr60196-1.c: Likewise. > * gcc.dg/vect/pr60196-2.c: Likewise. > * gcc.dg/vect/pr60276.c: Likewise. > * gcc.dg/vect/pr61680.c: Likewise. > * gcc.dg/vect/pr63148.c: Likewise. > * gcc.dg/vect/pr63189.c: Likewise. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-mask-load-1.c: Likewise. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-mask-loadstore-1.c: Likewise. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-nop-move.c: Likewise. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-simd-clone-10.c: Likewise. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-simd-clone-12.c: Likewise. > > >
