From 0a8c10e6f41339c16557a76dd11a4de08244acdf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Sebastian Huber <sebastian.huber@embedded-brains.de>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 12:27:05 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] Test case for PR55033
2012-10-31 Sebastian Huber <sebastian.huber@embedded-brains.de>
PR target/55033
* gcc.target/powerpc/pr55033.c: New.
---
gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr55033.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
1 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr55033.c
new file mode 100644
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-require-effective-target powerpc_eabi_ok } */
+/* { dg-options "-mcpu=8540 -msoft-float -msdata=eabi -G 8 -fno-common" } */
+
+void f(void);
+
+struct s {
+ int *p;
+ int *q;
+};
+
+extern int a;
+
+extern const struct s c;
+
+const struct s c = { &a, 0 };
+
+void f(void)
+{
+ char buf[4] = { 0, 1, 2, 3 };
+}
--
1.7.7
Hello Alan, maybe it is better to use a require effective target instead of the { target powerpc*-*-eabi* powerpc*-*-elf* powerpc*-*-linux* } patterns scattered around in the testsuite? One problem with this is that test cases for one of these will likely also work with powerpc*-*-rtems*. I want to look at the remaining 104 test cases which are marked as UNSUPPORTED for RTEMS some time in the future. Please have a look at the attached patches. On 10/31/2012 01:12 AM, Alan Modra wrote: > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 02:45:40PM +0100, Sebastian Huber wrote: >> On 10/26/2012 02:22 PM, Sebastian Huber wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> here is a test case for PR55033. >>> >> >> Is there something wrong with this test case? It compiles well with Alan's patch. > > It looks OK to me if you replace your "gd-do compile" line with the > following two lines to avoid failures on powerpc targets that don't > support -meabi -msdata. > > /* { dg-do compile { target powerpc*-*-eabi* powerpc*-*-elf* powerpc*-*-linux* } } */ > /* { dg-require-effective-target ilp32 } */ > >