On Fri, 2021-07-23 at 04:21 +0200, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > On Fri, 9 Jul 2021, Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches wrote: > > > > > > > The "smallest fix" is simply adding -fno-inline into > > > > > > mips.exp. > > > > > > However > > > > > > I don't like it because I agree with you that mips.exp > > > > > > shouldn't > > > > > > care > > > > > > about dg-options, at least don't do it too much. > > > > > As I said in the other message, I think the smallest fix is the > > > > > way > > > > > to > > > > > go though. > > > > THanks for chiming in Richard. I didn't know all the background > > > > here. > > > > Let's just go with the small fix based on your recommendation. We > > > > can > > > > always revisit if we keep running into issues in this code. > > > > > > Pushed at 3b33b113. > > > > It looks like that was the originally posted patch though. It > > probably > > wasn't very clear, but by smallest fix, I meant adding inline to: > > Xi, will you revert your commit that was not approved and apply the > correct fix?
Sorry, somehow I didn't see Richard's reply. Perhaps a misconfiguration on my mail server. The "correct" fix is --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/mips/mips.exp +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/mips/mips.exp @@ -325,6 +325,7 @@ foreach option { finite-math-only fixed-hi fixed-lo + inline lax-vector-conversions omit-frame-pointer optimize-sibling-calls right? I'll do a regtest and if there is no problem I'll commit it. -- Xi Ruoyao <xry...@mengyan1223.wang> School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University