On 4 October 2011 16:13, Ulrich Weigand <uweig...@de.ibm.com> wrote: > Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: >> On 26 September 2011 15:24, Ulrich Weigand <uweig...@de.ibm.com> wrote: >> > Is this sufficient, or should I test any other set of options as well? >> >> Could you run one set of tests with neon ? > > Sorry for the delay, but I had to switch to my IGEP board for Neon > support, and that's a bit slow ... In any case, I've now completed > testing the patch with Neon with no regressions. > >> > Just to clarify: in the presence of the other options that are already >> > in dg-options, the test case now fails (with the unpatched compiler) >> > for *any* setting of -mfloat-abi (hard, soft, or softfp). Do you still >> > want me to add a specific setting to the test case? >> >> No the mfpu=vfpv3 is fine. > > OK, thanks. > >> Instead of skipping I was wondering if we >> could prune the outputs to get this through all the testers we have. > > Well, the problem is that with certain -march options (e.g. armv7) we get: > /home/uweigand/gcc-head/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr50305.c:1:0: > error: target CPU does not support ARM mode
Ah - ok. > > Since this is an *error*, pruning the output doesn't really help, the > test isn't being run in any case. > >> Otherwise this is OK. > > Given the above, is the patch now OK as-is? OK by me. Ramana