Message ID | CAEwic4bRLgK7eW4WsvHAwU8e9ACYJzGj0n7rNZpQ7FDxRxzigA@mail.gmail.com |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
On 15/12/2011 10:33, Kai Tietz wrote: > -// { dg-options "-mno-align-double" { target i?86-*-cygwin* i?86-*-mingw* } } > +// As for mingw target the the ms-bitfield switch is activated by default, > +// make sure for this test that it is disabled. > +// { dg-options "-mno-align-double -mno-ms-bitfields" { target i?86-*-cygwin* i > ?86-*-mingw* } } We don't use ms-bitfields on Cygwin, so I guess it wouldn't be expected to do any harm anyway, but rather than setting the same options for both wouldn't it be possible to do: { dg-options "-mno-align-double" { target i?86-*-cygwin* i?86-*-mingw* } } { dg-additional-options "-mno-ms-bitfields" { target i?86-*-mingw* } } ... so that MinGW gets both and Cygwin only the one it wants? (Actually the first one could just as well be changed to dg-additional-options at the same time, couldn't it?) cheers, DaveK
Index: bitfield3.C =================================================================== --- bitfield3.C (revision 182092) +++ bitfield3.C (working copy) @@ -1,9 +1,11 @@ // Test for oversized bitfield alignment in structs on IA-32 // { dg-do run { target { { i?86-*-* x86_64-*-* } && ia32 } } } // { dg-options "-O2" } -// Cygwin and mingw32 default to MASK_ALIGN_DOUBLE. Override to ensure +// Cygwin and mingw default to MASK_ALIGN_DOUBLE. Override to ensure // 4-byte alignment. -// { dg-options "-mno-align-double" { target i?86-*-cygwin* i?86-*-mingw* } } +// As for mingw target the the ms-bitfield switch is activated by default, +// make sure for this test that it is disabled. +// { dg-options "-mno-align-double -mno-ms-bitfields" { target i?86-*-cygwin* i ?86-*-mingw* } } struct A