| Message ID | yddvbjpiswz.fsf@lokon.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
Rainer Orth wrote: > > I'm still not really comfortable with those target lists; they tend to > artificially exclude tests on targets where they are perfectly capable > of running. At least with the comments added, it's better than before > with no explanation whatsoever. Perhaps Mike can weigh in here? Well, it's been awhile, but on further reflection - my feeling is that we should be dropping the target lists here too. Maybe we end up introducing a dg-skip-if that grows over time, but it'd have to grow quite a bit to reach the size of the dg-do target we'd otherwise have... However I am a bit wary about dropping the dg-do target constraint just as we are nearing a release! So if we were to keep the whitelist approach, your patch looks good to me, and I'd be happy if that were committed. Cheers, Alan
Hi Alan, >> I'm still not really comfortable with those target lists; they tend to >> artificially exclude tests on targets where they are perfectly capable >> of running. At least with the comments added, it's better than before >> with no explanation whatsoever. Perhaps Mike can weigh in here? > > Well, it's been awhile, but on further reflection - my feeling is that we > should be dropping the target lists here too. Maybe we end up introducing a > dg-skip-if that grows over time, but it'd have to grow quite a bit to reach > the size of the dg-do target we'd otherwise have... It's not even necessary to use dg-skip if the scan-rtl-dump fails. You can just add an xfail there, which has the advantage that you do notice if the test starts to pass e.g. due to changes in a target. > However I am a bit wary about dropping the dg-do target constraint just as > we are nearing a release! So if we were to keep the whitelist approach, > your patch looks good to me, and I'd be happy if that were committed. Let's give others a day or two to comment: if nobody is in favour of the more agressive approach, I'll commit my patch. Thanks. Rainer
# HG changeset patch # Parent aedb8ec64c1c4c74e30210d024845e2b0b2dc1eb Properly check for 32 vs. 64-bit in gcc.dg/combine_ashiftrt_[12].c diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/combine_ashiftrt_1.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/combine_ashiftrt_1.c --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/combine_ashiftrt_1.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/combine_ashiftrt_1.c @@ -1,4 +1,6 @@ -/* { dg-do compile {target sparc64*-*-* aarch64*-*-* i?86-*-* x86_64-*-* powerpc64*-*-*} } */ +/* Target architectures which have been found to produce the expected RTL + (neg:DI (ge:DI ...)) when compiling for LP64. */ +/* { dg-do compile { target aarch64*-*-* arm*-*-* i?86-*-* ia64-*-* powerpc*-*-* sparc*-*-* x86_64-*-* } } */ /* { dg-require-effective-target lp64 } */ /* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-rtl-combine-all" } */ diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/combine_ashiftrt_2.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/combine_ashiftrt_2.c --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/combine_ashiftrt_2.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/combine_ashiftrt_2.c @@ -1,4 +1,6 @@ -/* { dg-do compile {target arm*-*-* i?86-*-* x86_64-*-* powerpc-*-* sparc-*-*} } */ +/* Target architectures where RTL has been found to produce the expected + (neg:SI (ge:SI ...)) when compiling for ILP32. */ +/* { dg-do compile { target aarch64*-*-* arm*-*-* i?86-*-* microblaze-*-* mips*-*-* powerpc*-*-* sparc*-*-* x86_64-*-* } } */ /* { dg-require-effective-target ilp32 } */ /* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-rtl-combine-all" } */