diff mbox

[testsuite] fix to gcc.target/arm/pr43698.c

Message ID 4D9F24B2.5040001@codesourcery.com
State New
Headers show

Commit Message

Janis Johnson April 8, 2011, 3:07 p.m. UTC 
Test gcc.target/arm/pr43698.c specifies -march=armv7-a and fails
execution for multilibs whose hardware or simulator doesn't support that
architecture.  The test doesn't depend on that option, and without it
will occasionally run for such a target anyway.  This patch removes the
option, letting it pass for all multilibs.

I don't yet have an FSF copyright assignment (it's currently in the
hands of the FSF) but this patch is small enough to not require one.  If
this is OK someone else will need to appy it.
2011-04-08  Janis Johnson  <janisjo@codesourcery.com>

	* gcc.target/arm/pr43698.c: Remove -march option.

Comments

Mike Stump April 8, 2011, 11:37 p.m. UTC | #1 
On Apr 8, 2011, at 8:07 AM, Janis Johnson wrote:
> Test gcc.target/arm/pr43698.c specifies -march=armv7-a and fails
> execution for multilibs whose hardware or simulator doesn't support that
> architecture.

Ideally, I'd like target people to weigh in on target changes, ssa people to weigh in on ssa testcases and so on...  If they don't approve or reject it soon, I'll weigh in...  I don't see any reason not to approve it.
Janis Johnson April 12, 2011, 7:16 p.m. UTC | #2 
On 04/08/2011 04:37 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Apr 8, 2011, at 8:07 AM, Janis Johnson wrote:
>> Test gcc.target/arm/pr43698.c specifies -march=armv7-a and fails
>> execution for multilibs whose hardware or simulator doesn't support that
>> architecture.
> 
> Ideally, I'd like target people to weigh in on target changes, ssa people to weigh in on ssa testcases and so on...  If they don't approve or reject it soon, I'll weigh in...  I don't see any reason not to approve it.

Ramana, is this change OK?  Please look also at a patch for gcc.target/arm/sync-1.c that I submitted right after this one.

Janis
Ramana Radhakrishnan April 12, 2011, 8:16 p.m. UTC | #3 
On 12 April 2011 20:16, Janis Johnson <janisjo@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On 04/08/2011 04:37 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
>> On Apr 8, 2011, at 8:07 AM, Janis Johnson wrote:
>>> Test gcc.target/arm/pr43698.c specifies -march=armv7-a and fails
>>> execution for multilibs whose hardware or simulator doesn't support that
>>> architecture.
>>
>> Ideally, I'd like target people to weigh in on target changes, ssa people to weigh in on ssa testcases and so on...  If they don't approve or reject it soon, I'll weigh in...  I don't see any reason not to approve it.
>
> Ramana, is this change OK?  Please look also at a patch for gcc.target/arm/sync-1.c that I submitted right after this one.

This is OK.

cheers
Ramana
Ramana Radhakrishnan April 12, 2011, 10:48 p.m. UTC | #4 
On 12/04/11 20:16, Janis Johnson wrote:
> On 04/08/2011 04:37 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
>> On Apr 8, 2011, at 8:07 AM, Janis Johnson wrote:
>>> Test gcc.target/arm/pr43698.c specifies -march=armv7-a and fails
>>> execution for multilibs whose hardware or simulator doesn't support that
>>> architecture.
>>
>> Ideally, I'd like target people to weigh in on target changes, ssa people to weigh in on ssa testcases and so on...  If they don't approve or reject it soon, I'll weigh in...  I don't see any reason not to approve it.
>
> Ramana, is this change OK?  Please look also at a patch for gcc.target/arm/sync-1.c that I submitted right after this one.
>


I have committed both these patches into trunk - Thanks .


Ramana
> Janis
diff mbox

Patch

Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr43698.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr43698.c	(revision 320350)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr43698.c	(working copy)
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ 
 /* { dg-do run } */
-/* { dg-options "-Os -march=armv7-a" } */
+/* { dg-options "-Os" } */
 #include <stdint.h>
 #include <stdlib.h>