On 5/21/19 11:41 AM, Dominique d'Humières wrote:
> Hi Martin,
> 
>  /* { dg-require-ifunc } */
> 
> should be
> 
>  /* { dg-require-ifunc ""} */
> 
> and the same for pr90500-2.c (see 
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-05/msg01152.html)
> 
> TIA
> 
> Dominique
> 

I'm addressing that in patch that I'm going to install.

Martin
>From 14f8d01fccd4d94e9575f7d964faf4144db0879d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Martin Liska <mli...@suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 13:04:14 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Add missing "" for dg-require-ifunc.

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:

2019-05-21  Martin Liska  <mli...@suse.cz>

	* gcc.target/i386/pr90500-1.c: Add missing '""'.
	* gcc.target/i386/pr90500-2.c: Likewise.
---
 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr90500-1.c | 2 +-
 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr90500-2.c | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr90500-1.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr90500-1.c
index 7ac6a739c05..e90e5ed4674 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr90500-1.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr90500-1.c
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 /* PR middle-end/84723 */
 /* { dg-do compile } */
-/* { dg-require-ifunc } */
+/* { dg-require-ifunc "" } */
 
 __attribute__((target_clones("arch=haswell", "default"))) int __tanh() {}
 __typeof(__tanh) tanhf64 __attribute__((alias("__tanh")))/* { dg-error "clones for .target_clones. attribute cannot be created" } */
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr90500-2.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr90500-2.c
index 0fafb8adb21..cb0658dbc38 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr90500-2.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr90500-2.c
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 /* PR middle-end/84723 */
 /* { dg-do compile } */
-/* { dg-require-ifunc } */
+/* { dg-require-ifunc "" } */
 
 __attribute__((target_clones("arch=haswell", "default"))) int __tanh() {}
 __typeof(__tanh) tanhf64 __attribute__((alias("__tanh"),target_clones("arch=haswell", "default"))); /* { dg-error "clones for .target_clones. attribute cannot be created" } */
-- 
2.21.0

Reply via email to