on 2022/8/31 22:13, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On 8/31/22 4:33 AM, Kewen.Lin wrote:
>> @@ -1,7 +1,8 @@
>> /* { dg-do compile { target { powerpc*-*-* } } } */
>> /* { dg-skip-if "" { powerpc*-*-aix* } } */
>> -/* { dg-options "-O2 -mpowerpc64" } */
>> /* { dg-require-effective-target ilp32 } */
>> +/* { dg-options "-O2 -mpowerpc64" } */
>> +/* { dg-require-effective-target has_arch_ppc64 } */
>
> With many of our recent patches moving the dg-options before any
> dg-requires-effectice-target so it affects the results of the
> dg-requires-effectice-target test, this looks like it's backwards
> from that process. I understand why, so I think an explicit comment
> here in the test case explaining why it's after in this case.
> Just so in a few years when we come back to this test case, we
> won't accidentally undo this change.
Oops, the diff shows it's like "after", but it's actually still "before". :)
The dg-options is meant to be placed before the succeeding has_arch_ppc64
effective target which is supposed to use dg-options to compile. I felt
good to let ilp32 checking go first then has_arch_ppc64, so moved dg-option
downward.
Sorry for the confusion, I should have placed the has_arch_ppc64
effective target just after the dg-options. Anyway, it's a good idea
to add more comments in test case source! Thanks!
BR,
Kewen
