| Message ID | 2031136.eCvnWLDzEh@e108577-lin |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On 26/05/16 09:24, Thomas Preudhomme wrote: > On Wednesday 25 May 2016 11:38:44 Mike Stump wrote: >> On May 25, 2016, at 10:20 AM, Thomas Preudhomme > <thomas.preudhomme@foss.arm.com> wrote: >>> 2016-05-24 Thomas Preud'homme <thomas.preudhomme@arm.com> >>> >>> * gcc.dg/plugin/plugin.exp: skip tail call tests for Thumb-1. >>> >>> Is this ok for trunk? >> Ok. Normally I'd just punt to the arm folks. Better to Cc them on the >> patch. I watch all the changes to the .exp files, and will scream if >> something seems to be going wrong. > Fair enough. I was not sure because it was touching to .exp files. What do ARM > maintainers think? > > Is this ok for trunk? From my perspective the check for tailcall availability on arm is correct. I don't know whether the place you add it in is correct as I'm not familiar with that .exp file, so if Mike has no objections to it's placement I'd say it's ok. Thanks, Kyrill > Best regards, > > Thomas
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/plugin/plugin.exp b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/plugin/plugin.exp index 62f6797..321b4ba 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/plugin/plugin.exp +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/plugin/plugin.exp @@ -90,6 +90,12 @@ foreach plugin_test $plugin_test_list { if ![runtest_file_p $runtests $plugin_src] then { continue } + # Skip tail call tests on targets that do not have sibcall_epilogue. + if {[regexp ".*must_tail_call_plugin.c" $plugin_src] + && [istarget arm*-*-*] + && [check_effective_target_arm_thumb1]} then { + continue + } set plugin_input_tests [lreplace $plugin_test 0 0] plugin-test-execute $plugin_src $plugin_input_tests }