On Sep 5, 2014, at 3:10 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> Should PR20567 now be updated?
Updated.
Hi!
On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 14:18:32 +0200, Bernd Schmidt
wrote:
> On 07/29/2014 12:36 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 Jul 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >> Yeah. I believe gcc.c-torture/compile/ has been converted already,
> >> so it is just about gcc.c-torture/execute/.
> >> So, please j
On 08/28/14 08:27, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 08/22/2014 10:39 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
On Aug 22, 2014, at 5:18 AM, Bernd Schmidt
wrote:
Here's another attempt.
Ok?
Ok. Thanks a ton for doing the work.
The next question would be what to do with gcc.c-torture/unsorted. As
far as I can tell
On Aug 28, 2014, at 7:27 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> The next question would be what to do with gcc.c-torture/unsorted. As far as
> I can tell, these are all just plain compile tests, except for dump-noaddr.c.
> Ok to move all except for that test to c-torture/compile, adjusting SFset.c
> and
On 08/22/2014 10:39 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
On Aug 22, 2014, at 5:18 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
Here's another attempt.
Ok?
Ok. Thanks a ton for doing the work.
The next question would be what to do with gcc.c-torture/unsorted. As
far as I can tell, these are all just plain compile tests
On 08/22/2014 10:39 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
Before you check it in, consider:
930529-1.x has some alpha bits but I didn’t notice a discussion nor
do I have state on the bug to know if the resolution is correct.
Those are commented out, and I assume superseded by the use of -fwrapv.
Thanks!
Be
On Aug 22, 2014, at 5:18 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>
> Here's another attempt.
> Ok?
Ok. Thanks a ton for doing the work.
The resolutions look fine, the translation looks good.
Before you check it in, consider:
930529-1.x has some alpha bits but I didn’t notice a discussion nor do I have
On 07/29/2014 12:36 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Yeah. I believe gcc.c-torture/compile/ has been converted already,
so it is just about gcc.c-torture/execute/. Each of these tests has
it's own default idioms, e.g. -w in by default in gcc.c-torture/.
Us
On Thu, 24 Jul 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 04:52:23PM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > > Comments, objections? Ok to apply the preliminary patch?
> >
> > Yes, what if you don't move the tests but just change how the .exp to
> > use the same infrastructure as gcc.dg/torture
[ dup, sorry ]
On Jul 24, 2014, at 12:06 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 04:52:23PM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>>> Comments, objections? Ok to apply the preliminary patch?
>>
>> Yes, what if you don't move the tests but just change how the .exp to
>> use the same infrastructu
On Jul 24, 2014, at 12:06 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 04:52:23PM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>>> Comments, objections? Ok to apply the preliminary patch?
>>
>> Yes, what if you don't move the tests but just change how the .exp to
>> use the same infrastructure as gcc.dg/tor
Thomas Schwinge writes:
> Hi!
>
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 01:47:09 +0200, Bernd Schmidt
> wrote:
>> (git doesn't seem to produce something
>> nice for the renames unfortunately)
>
> Are you maybe looking for the the -M or -C options to certain commands
> (diff, show, ...)?
Or set diff.renames in
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 04:52:23PM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > Comments, objections? Ok to apply the preliminary patch?
>
> Yes, what if you don't move the tests but just change how the .exp to
> use the same infrastructure as gcc.dg/torture instead?
Yeah. I believe gcc.c-torture/compile/ ha
Hi!
On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 01:47:09 +0200, Bernd Schmidt
wrote:
> (git doesn't seem to produce something
> nice for the renames unfortunately)
Are you maybe looking for the the -M or -C options to certain commands
(diff, show, ...)?
Grüße,
Thomas
pgpmCctHzScdm.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 4:47 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> This is an idea I discussed with a few folks at the Cauldron, and since they
> made supportive noises, I decided to work on it. The problem I'm trying to
> solve is that for ptx, I'll have to mark a lot of testcases as unsupported
> (uses of
This is an idea I discussed with a few folks at the Cauldron, and since
they made supportive noises, I decided to work on it. The problem I'm
trying to solve is that for ptx, I'll have to mark a lot of testcases as
unsupported (uses of things such as indirect jumps, alloca, and
sometimes K&R-st
16 matches
Mail list logo
