Re: marking ppc440 tests as unsupported

2009-01-12 Thread Daniel Jacobowitz
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:10:18AM -0600, Joel Sherrill wrote: The unfortunate thing is that I think these tests are really ensuring that MASK_DLMZB is used as expected. If this is right, then shouldn't there be a cpp predefine similar to __NO_LWSYNC__ for dlmzb? And the tests use that

Re: marking ppc440 tests as unsupported

2009-01-12 Thread Joseph S. Myers
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Joel Sherrill wrote: The unfortunate thing is that I think these tests are really ensuring that MASK_DLMZB is used as expected. If this is right, then shouldn't there be a cpp predefine similar to __NO_LWSYNC__ for dlmzb? And the tests use that rather than testing for

Re: marking ppc440 tests as unsupported

2009-01-12 Thread Joel Sherrill
Joseph S. Myers wrote: On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Joel Sherrill wrote: The unfortunate thing is that I think these tests are really ensuring that MASK_DLMZB is used as expected. If this is right, then shouldn't there be a cpp predefine similar to __NO_LWSYNC__ for dlmzb? And the tests use that