> When you used verbose, did you pass --verbose within RUNTESTFLAGS?
Yes, I passed enough -v's to see what was happening. Odd. Well, if
you've proven it to yourself, that's good enough for me.
On Mon, 2009-04-27 at 19:07 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
> > I'm convinced that if check_effective_target_xxx exists then it is
> > called and the test directive works as intended.
>
> Hmmm... how did you prove this? I tried putting verbose in them,
> nothing printed. I tried reversing them, no chan
> I'm convinced that if check_effective_target_xxx exists then it is
> called and the test directive works as intended.
Hmmm... how did you prove this? I tried putting verbose in them,
nothing printed. I tried reversing them, no change in test results.
On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 17:10 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
> In gcc.dg/Wconversion-real.c we see this:
>
> vdouble = 3.1L; /* { dg-warning "conversion" "" { target large_long_double
> } } */
>
> It turns out check_effective_target_large_long_double is NEVER called.
> You can change it to some bogus
In gcc.dg/Wconversion-real.c we see this:
vdouble = 3.1L; /* { dg-warning "conversion" "" { target large_long_double }
} */
It turns out check_effective_target_large_long_double is NEVER called.
You can change it to some bogus string:
fdouble (3.1L); /* { dg-warning "conversion" "" { targe
