RE: [PATCH] arm: [testuiste] fix ivopts.c target test [PR96372]

[Kyrylo Tkachov via Gcc-patches]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrea Corallo <andrea.cora...@arm.com>
> Sent: 21 January 2021 11:13
> To: Kyrylo Tkachov <kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com>
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Richard Earnshaw
> <richard.earns...@arm.com>; nd <n...@arm.com>;
> christophe.l...@linaro.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm: [testuiste] fix ivopts.c target test [PR96372]
> 
> Kyrylo Tkachov <kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com> writes:
> 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Andrea Corallo <andrea.cora...@arm.com>
> >> Sent: 19 January 2021 17:13
> >> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> >> Cc: Kyrylo Tkachov <kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com>; Richard Earnshaw
> >> <richard.earns...@arm.com>; nd <n...@arm.com>;
> >> christophe.l...@linaro.org
> >> Subject: [PATCH] arm: [testuiste] fix ivopts.c target test [PR96372]
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> this patch is for PR96372, the fail was introduced by [1] where the
> >> failing check went from using target 'arm_thumb2' to
> >> 'arm_thumb2_ok_no_arm_v8_1_lob'.  Unfortunately this is relying on
> >> 'arm_thumb2_ok' that has a different semantic compared to the original
> >> 'arm_thumb2'.
> >>
> >> This patch is introducing then 'arm_thumb2_no_arm_v8_1_lob' relying on
> >> 'arm_thumb2' to restore the intended behavior.
> >>
> >> Okay for trunk?
> >>
> >
> > We usually try to avoid having such negative options (target-no-feature).
> Dejagnu can use "!" to indicate negation of a target, can you use that?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Kyrill
> 
> Hi Kyrill,
> 
> thanks for reviewing.
> 
> Not sure I get the suggestion: here 'arm_thumb2_no_arm_v8_1_lob' stands
> for 'arm_thumb2' positive and 'arm_v8_1_lob' negative.  Similarly we
> already have 'target_arm_thumb2_ok_no_arm_v8_1_lob'.
> 

Ah ok, then it's fine to be consistent.
The patch is ok.
Thanks,
Kyrill

> Am I missing something?
> 
>   Andrea