On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 09:16:32AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 3:38 AM, Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
> > Ah, I see. Could you change the comment then, to say what we are
> > really testing?
>
> Sure. Updated as follows. Committed to mainline.
Thanks!
Segher
On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 3:38 AM, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 07:38:04PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 4:40 AM, Segher Boessenkool
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > The new split-1.c testcase fails on targets that do not support split
>> > stack (like 32-bit P
>
> [ Paul Hua sent a patch adding split_stack already, it was OKed, but
> it is not committed yet, fwiw ].
>
I saw this, so not commit my patch.
Paul.
On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 07:38:04PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 4:40 AM, Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
> >
> > The new split-1.c testcase fails on targets that do not support split
> > stack (like 32-bit PowerPC Linux). This patch fixes it by only running
> > the testcas
On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 4:40 AM, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> The new split-1.c testcase fails on targets that do not support split
> stack (like 32-bit PowerPC Linux). This patch fixes it by only running
> the testcase if split stack is supported. It also adds the reorder
> flag to the options
The new split-1.c testcase fails on targets that do not support split
stack (like 32-bit PowerPC Linux). This patch fixes it by only running
the testcase if split stack is supported. It also adds the reorder
flag to the options, so that the test actually tests what it says it
tests.
Is this okay
