On 24/06/11 14:18, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: > On 24/06/11 01:40, Janis Johnson wrote: >> Test gcc.target/arm/pr42093.c, added by Ramana, requires support for >> arm_thumb2 but fails for those targets. The patch for which it was >> added modified support for thumb1. Should the test instead require >> arm_thumb1_ok, as in this patch? > > No this is for a Thumb2 defect so the test is valid for Thumb2 - we > shouldn't be generating a tbb / tbh with signed offsets and that's what > was happening there. > > This test I think ends up being fragile because the generation of tbb / > tbh depends on how the blocks have been laid out . It would be > interesting to try and get a test that works reliably in T2 . > > cheers > Ramana > >> >> Janis > > > Perhaps -fno-reorder-blocks could be used to make it less fragile.
R.