Message ID | 20111212152057.9294F3BE18@mailhost.lps.ens.fr |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 04:20:57PM +0100, Dominique Dhumieres wrote: > > > I'm fine with whatever you guys come up with... > > > > Likewise. I have no preference. Whatever gets approved is ok with me. > > So let's pick the Iain's proposal: > > Index: gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cxxbitfields-3.c > =================================================================== > --- gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cxxbitfields-3.c (revision 182177) > +++ gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cxxbitfields-3.c (working copy) > @@ -18,4 +18,5 @@ void setit() > var.j = 5; > } > > -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "movl.*, var" } } */ > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "movl.*, _?var" { target { ! *-*-darwin* } } } } */ > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "movl.*, (_?var|\\(%)" { target *-*-darwin* } } } */ Only if *-*-darwin* is replaced with !nonpic, otherwise it will fail say on x86_64-linux if people test with RUNTESTFLAGS=--target_board=unix/-fpic Jakub
Index: gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cxxbitfields-3.c =================================================================== --- gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cxxbitfields-3.c (revision 182177) +++ gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cxxbitfields-3.c (working copy) @@ -18,4 +18,5 @@ void setit() var.j = 5; } -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "movl.*, var" } } */ +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "movl.*, _?var" { target { ! *-*-darwin* } } } } */ +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "movl.*, (_?var|\\(%)" { target *-*-darwin* } } } */