On 20/06/12 15:27, Sebastian Huber wrote: > Hi, > > maybe it makes sense to look at some test suite comments since now all non > EABI > configurations have been removed (is this correct?). >
No, not quite. All configurations using the FPA have been removed. That's not quite the same thing. NetBSD is still supported (though it's not been tested in a while) and that uses the ATPCS (or something quite close to it). R. > The problem was pointed out here: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-05/msg00950.html > > Here are some samples of the test suite (4.8-20120617): > > gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.other/vaarg2.C:// { dg-options "-Wno-abi" { > target arm_eabi } } > > gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/visibility/arm1.C:// { dg-do compile { target > arm*-*-eabi* arm*-*-symbianelf* } } > > gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/visibility/arm2.C:// { dg-do compile { target > arm*-*-*eabi* arm*-*-symbianelf* } } > > gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/visibility/arm3.C:// { dg-do compile { target > arm*-*-*eabi* } } > > gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/abi/arm_va_list.C:// { dg-require-effective-target > arm_eabi } > > Does it make sense to replace all "arm*-*-eabi*", "arm*-*-*eabi*", and > "arm*-*-symbianelf*" combinations with "arm_eabi"? > I'll look at them when I get round to that part of the tools. There's still some clean-up work in the main part of the compiler to finish before I move onto other parts. R.
