On Feb 13, 2014, at 10:07 PM, David Holsgrove <david.holsgr...@xilinx.com>
wrote:
> I've attached a patch to extend the regex pattern to include optional 'ext'
> at the end of
> '.weak' to match the MicroBlaze weak label '.weakext' in two of the g++ test
> cases.
I don’t feel strongly either way. I'd like think weak(_definition)?(ext)?…..
is good enough, as this test doesn’t much care beyond that.
spec34 does:
{ dg-final { scan-assembler ".weak(_definition)?\[\t \]*_?_Z2f2IiEvT_”
for example. Which I think is fairly readable/maintainable.
Let’s give others that might disagree with me an opportunity to do so… I’m
happy to defer to anyone that has a stronger opinion than mine. If no one
steps forward, I’ll ok either way you want to go.
Wearing my hat as darwin/testsuite maintainer. :-)
