Re: [patch, nios2] testsuite cleanup

2014-08-23 Thread Hans-Peter Nilsson
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014, Sandra Loosemore wrote: > On 08/23/2014 10:26 AM, Mike Stump wrote: > > On Aug 22, 2014, at 3:48 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > > > > > > > +/* non default branch cost */ > > > > +/* { dg-do run { target { ! "m68k*-*-* mmix*-*-* mep*-*-* bfin*-*-* > > > > v850*-*-* picochip*-

Re: [patch, nios2] testsuite cleanup

2014-08-23 Thread Mike Stump
On Aug 23, 2014, at 9:37 AM, Sandra Loosemore wrote: > If we're going to go through the trouble of adding a comment here, we might > as well make it something less terse and more explicit, like: > > These tests fail unless the target backend overrides BRANCH_COST to return a > value >= 2. Soun

Re: [patch, nios2] testsuite cleanup

2014-08-23 Thread Sandra Loosemore
On 08/23/2014 10:26 AM, Mike Stump wrote: On Aug 22, 2014, at 3:48 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: +/* non default branch cost */ +/* { dg-do run { target { ! "m68k*-*-* mmix*-*-* mep*-*-* bfin*-*-* v850*-*-* picochip*-*-* moxie*-*-* cris*-*-* m32c*-*-* fr30*-*-* mcore*-*-* powerpc*-*-* xtens

Re: [patch, nios2] testsuite cleanup

2014-08-23 Thread Mike Stump
On Aug 22, 2014, at 3:48 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > >> +/* non default branch cost */ >> +/* { dg-do run { target { ! "m68k*-*-* mmix*-*-* mep*-*-* bfin*-*-* >> v850*-*-* picochip*-*-* moxie*-*-* cris*-*-* m32c*-*-* fr30*-*-* mcore*-*-* >> powerpc*-*-* xtensa*-*-* hppa*-*-* nios2*-*-*"} }

Re: [patch, nios2] testsuite cleanup

2014-08-22 Thread Hans-Peter Nilsson
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014, Mike Stump wrote: > On Aug 21, 2014, at 10:59 AM, Sandra Loosemore > wrote: > > On 08/21/2014 11:36 AM, Mike Stump wrote: > >> On Aug 21, 2014, at 8:00 AM, Sandra Loosemore > >> wrote: > >>> tests that assume some non-default branch costs in the back end > >> > >> Thanks. >

Re: [patch, nios2] testsuite cleanup

2014-08-21 Thread Mike Stump
On Aug 21, 2014, at 5:06 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote: > I'd really like the maintainers of these tree-ssa tests to figure out what > target they're supposed to work for or come up with a suitable test for > feature support, rather than me trying to guess the failure mode for all > these other ba

Re: [patch, nios2] testsuite cleanup

2014-08-21 Thread Sandra Loosemore
On 08/21/2014 03:50 PM, Mike Stump wrote: Sorry, I meant 4… Your patch has four instances of this change: -/* { dg-do run { target { ! "m68k*-*-* mmix*-*-* mep*-*-* bfin*-*-* v850*-*-* picochip*-*-* moxie*-*-* cris*-*-* m32c*-*-* fr30*-*-* mcore*-*-* powerpc*-*-* xtensa*-*-* hppa*-*-*"} } }

Re: [patch, nios2] testsuite cleanup

2014-08-21 Thread Mike Stump
On Aug 21, 2014, at 10:59 AM, Sandra Loosemore wrote: > On 08/21/2014 11:36 AM, Mike Stump wrote: >> On Aug 21, 2014, at 8:00 AM, Sandra Loosemore >> wrote: >>> tests that assume some non-default branch costs in the back end >> >> Thanks. >> >> One comment, could you put in /* non default branc

Re: [patch, nios2] testsuite cleanup

2014-08-21 Thread Sandra Loosemore
On 08/21/2014 11:36 AM, Mike Stump wrote: On Aug 21, 2014, at 8:00 AM, Sandra Loosemore wrote: tests that assume some non-default branch costs in the back end Thanks. One comment, could you put in /* non default branch cost */ above the three where that is true. The three what? :-S Even

Re: [patch, nios2] testsuite cleanup

2014-08-21 Thread Mike Stump
On Aug 21, 2014, at 8:00 AM, Sandra Loosemore wrote: > tests that assume some non-default branch costs in the back end Thanks. One comment, could you put in /* non default branch cost */ above the three where that is true. Even better would be to refactor those into something for target suppo