| Message ID | 1433152137-12570-1-git-send-email-alex.velenko@arm.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On 01/06/15 10:48, Alex Velenko wrote: > Hi, > > This patch fix thumb-ltu.c to pass excess error test. > Without default -std=gnu90 flag, this testcase started failing > as some functions were called before being predefined. > > Is patch ok? > > gcc/testsuite > > 2015-06-01 Alex Velenko <Alex.Velenko@arm.com> > > * gcc.target/arm/thumb-ltu.c (foo): Predefined. > (bar): Predefined. > --- > gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/thumb-ltu.c | 3 +++ > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/thumb-ltu.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/thumb-ltu.c > index d057ea3..124b025 100644 > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/thumb-ltu.c > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/thumb-ltu.c > @@ -2,6 +2,9 @@ > /* { dg-require-effective-target arm_thumb1_ok } */ > /* { dg-options "-mcpu=arm1136jf-s -mthumb -O2" } */ > > +int foo(); > +int bar(); > + Surely this is, extern int foo (void); extern int bar (void); > void f(unsigned a, unsigned b, unsigned c, unsigned d) > { > if (a <= b || c > d) > OK with that change. Ramana
On 01/06/15 10:50, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: > > > On 01/06/15 10:48, Alex Velenko wrote: >> Hi, >> >> This patch fix thumb-ltu.c to pass excess error test. >> Without default -std=gnu90 flag, this testcase started failing >> as some functions were called before being predefined. >> >> Is patch ok? >> >> gcc/testsuite >> >> 2015-06-01 Alex Velenko <Alex.Velenko@arm.com> >> >> * gcc.target/arm/thumb-ltu.c (foo): Predefined. >> (bar): Predefined. >> --- >> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/thumb-ltu.c | 3 +++ >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/thumb-ltu.c >> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/thumb-ltu.c >> index d057ea3..124b025 100644 >> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/thumb-ltu.c >> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/thumb-ltu.c >> @@ -2,6 +2,9 @@ >> /* { dg-require-effective-target arm_thumb1_ok } */ >> /* { dg-options "-mcpu=arm1136jf-s -mthumb -O2" } */ >> >> +int foo(); >> +int bar(); >> + > > Surely this is, > > > extern int foo (void); > extern int bar (void); > >> void f(unsigned a, unsigned b, unsigned c, unsigned d) >> { >> if (a <= b || c > d) >> > > > OK with that change. > > Ramana > Committed with said change r223982. Is patch ok for fsf-5 backport? Alex
>> > Committed with said change r223982. > Is patch ok for fsf-5 backport? > Alex > OK if no regressions. Ramana
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/thumb-ltu.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/thumb-ltu.c index d057ea3..124b025 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/thumb-ltu.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/thumb-ltu.c @@ -2,6 +2,9 @@ /* { dg-require-effective-target arm_thumb1_ok } */ /* { dg-options "-mcpu=arm1136jf-s -mthumb -O2" } */ +int foo(); +int bar(); + void f(unsigned a, unsigned b, unsigned c, unsigned d) { if (a <= b || c > d)
Hi, This patch fix thumb-ltu.c to pass excess error test. Without default -std=gnu90 flag, this testcase started failing as some functions were called before being predefined. Is patch ok? gcc/testsuite 2015-06-01 Alex Velenko <Alex.Velenko@arm.com> * gcc.target/arm/thumb-ltu.c (foo): Predefined. (bar): Predefined. --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/thumb-ltu.c | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)