On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 12:32:15PM +0100, James Greenhalgh wrote: > On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 09:40:28AM +0100, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > > > > On 21/07/15 18:14, James Greenhalgh wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 04:21:15PM +0100, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > > >> Hi all, > > >> > > >> These are the tests for target attributes and pragmas. > > >> I've tried to test for the inlining rules, some of the possible errors > > >> and > > >> the preprocessor macros changed from target pragmas. > > >> > > >> Ok for trunk? > > > Mechanical changes in the pragma tests for the sake of grammar! > > > > > > s/defined but shouldn't/is defined but should not be/ > > > s/not defined but should/is not defined but should be/ > > > > > > Note that some of the errors have different text, so you'll have to run > > > through by hand and check these are consistent. > > > > > > It would be good to hand some of these target attribute tests off > > > to the assembler to make sure we are also putting out appropriate > > > directives in our output. Perhaps "assemble" is the more appropriate > > > dg-do directive? > > > > > > Some more nits below (mostly missing comments on testcases). > > > > Thanks, here's an updated version. > > > > I've also added a test for the "+nothing" architectural feature > > attribute introduced in patch 10/14 and renamed the tests to use > > underscores in their names. > > > > How's this? >
These tests fail for me with -fPIC, where you won't get inlining of non-static functions. NA->FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/target_attr_14.c scan-assembler-not bl.*bar NA->FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/target_attr_5.c scan-assembler-not bl.*bar NA->FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/target_attr_8.c scan-assembler-not bl.*bar NA->FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/target_attr_14.c scan-assembler-not bl.*bar NA->FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/target_attr_5.c scan-assembler-not bl.*bar NA->FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/target_attr_8.c scan-assembler-not bl.*bar You'll probably want to mark the functions you expect to be inlined as static, or otherwise skip the test for fPIC. Thanks, James