On Fri, 2023-03-17 at 17:10 +0100, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > From: David Malcolm
> > Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2023 14:42:58 -0400
>
> > I think I prefer the top one-liner dg-skip-if approach you
> > mentioned in
> > your original email; it seems simplest.
>
> Ok then. There's also a choice between
> From: David Malcolm
> Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2023 14:42:58 -0400
> I think I prefer the top one-liner dg-skip-if approach you mentioned in
> your original email; it seems simplest.
Ok then. There's also a choice between adding a
target-specifier (i.e. "{ target { ! default_packed } }") to
the dg-c
> From: Hans-Peter Nilsson
> Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2023 19:25:05 +0100
> That doesn't seem like a good idea. At a glance the
> *testcode* will be simpler, but the patch will be slightly
> larger
Bah, s/but the patch will be slightly larger/and the patch
will certainly be smaller, but because less i
On Thu, 2023-03-16 at 19:25 +0100, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > From: David Malcolm
> > Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2023 13:55:48 -0400
>
> > On Thu, 2023-03-09 at 19:56 +0100, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > > It's not obvious to me whether considered best to include or
> > > exclude these tests that depen
> From: David Malcolm
> Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2023 13:55:48 -0400
> On Thu, 2023-03-09 at 19:56 +0100, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > It's not obvious to me whether considered best to include or
> > exclude these tests that depend on structure layout details.
> > If excluding, the obvious alternative
On Thu, 2023-03-09 at 19:56 +0100, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> It's not obvious to me whether considered best to include or
> exclude these tests that depend on structure layout details.
> If excluding, the obvious alternative to this patch is then
> to add a top one-liner (to dg-skip-if the test f
