On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, Paul Brook wrote:
> I you have several of these you might want to consider adding an
> effective-target check that uses a compile test rather than guessing from
> commandline options. c.f. check_effective_target_arm32 and
> check_effective_target_arm_vfp_ok.
Note the issue
On Fri, 2008-03-14 at 10:21 -0700, Janis Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-03-14 at 10:18 -0500, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>
> > /* { dg-skip-if "" { *-*-* } { "-mcpu=405" } { "-mcpu=" } } */
> >
> > I think this is doing what we want it to. It looks like it results
> > the tests getting run when -mcpu=40
On Fri, 2008-03-14 at 10:18 -0500, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> /* { dg-skip-if "" { *-*-* } { "-mcpu=405" } { "-mcpu=" } } */
>
> I think this is doing what we want it to. It looks like it results
> the tests getting run when -mcpu=405 and excluded when
> -mcpu=603e is set on the board cflags.
The te
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> If you all think this is the right approach, ack me and I will
> get the powerpc cases done first and submit a patch for review.
Janis will need to confirm the right approach.
The aim is:
* If no -mcpu option in the multilib flags, run the test (with
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Joel Sherrill wrote:
Also, if you use a multilib option in testing, that option goes on the
command line *after* the options specified in dg-options. The tests may
need to use dg-skip-if to skip them if any CPU option other than the one
in the tes
On Friday 14 March 2008, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> > > Also, if you use a multilib option in testing, that option goes on the
> > > command line *after* the options specified in dg-options. The tests
> > > may need to use dg-skip-if to skip them if any CP
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> > Also, if you use a multilib option in testing, that option goes on the
> > command line *after* the options specified in dg-options. The tests may
> > need to use dg-skip-if to skip them if any CPU option other than the one
> > in the test is explicit
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, David Edelsohn wrote:
Joel Sherrill writes:
Joel> FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/405-mullhw-1.c scan-assembler mullhw
Joel> Are those things which would be expected to fail on a vanilla
Joel> 603e target without networking or disk?
Joel
