On 04/02/2015 11:40, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 11:33:19AM +, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/guality/pr36728-1.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/guality/pr36728-1.c
@@ -49,5 +49,6 @@ main ()
int l = 0;
asm ("" : "=r" (l) : "0" (l));
a = foo
On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 11:33:19AM +, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/guality/pr36728-1.c
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/guality/pr36728-1.c
> @@ -49,5 +49,6 @@ main ()
>int l = 0;
>asm ("" : "=r" (l) : "0" (l));
>a = foo (l + 1, l + 2, l + 3, l + 4, l + 5, l
On 04/02/2015 11:10, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 11:03:29AM +, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
Changelog:
* gcc.dg/guality/pr36728-1.c: Skip some tests for arm.
Segher and I discussed an alternative approach - marking these as "m"
(arg1) , "m" (arg2) etc in the asm b
On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 11:03:29AM +, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> >
> > Changelog:
> >
> > * gcc.dg/guality/pr36728-1.c: Skip some tests for arm.
> >
>
> Segher and I discussed an alternative approach - marking these as "m"
> (arg1) , "m" (arg2) etc in the asm blocks also gives us the s
>
> Changelog:
>
> * gcc.dg/guality/pr36728-1.c: Skip some tests for arm.
>
Segher and I discussed an alternative approach - marking these as "m"
(arg1) , "m" (arg2) etc in the asm blocks also gives us the same
effect and then probably removes the need to rely on such target
markers. I've ju
Hi,
I decided to spend some time looking at the large number of guality
test failures on arm. I see a number of fails with
gcc.dg/guality/pr36728-1.c as below. pr36728-2.c also fails in similar
sort of ways. Before I go adjusting too many other tests I'd like to get
some feedback regarding t
