On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 1:53 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-06-09 at 11:22 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 06/09/2016 07:30 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
>> >
>> > The self-tests specifically abort the build and break bootstrap
>> > upon
>> > failure. Most other changes that inadvertently have b
On Thu, 2016-06-09 at 11:22 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 06/09/2016 07:30 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> >
> > The self-tests specifically abort the build and break bootstrap
> > upon
> > failure. Most other changes that inadvertently have bugs or tickle
> > a
> > latent issue in a target will introd
On 06/09/2016 07:30 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
The self-tests specifically abort the build and break bootstrap upon
failure. Most other changes that inadvertently have bugs or tickle a
latent issue in a target will introduce some additional testsuite
failures, not a bootstrap failure. x86 devel
On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 9:10 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 09:02:27AM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>> > On 06/09/2016 02:21 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
>> >
>> >> This is a completely unacceptable way to introduce these sel
On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 09:02:27AM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> > On 06/09/2016 02:21 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> >
> >> This is a completely unacceptable way to introduce these self-tests.
> >> Please stop adding self-tests that only are te
On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 06/09/2016 02:21 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
>
>> This is a completely unacceptable way to introduce these self-tests.
>> Please stop adding self-tests that only are tested on x86 Linux and
>> cause bootstrap failures.
>
>
> We have no requir
On 06/09/2016 02:21 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
This is a completely unacceptable way to introduce these self-tests.
Please stop adding self-tests that only are tested on x86 Linux and
cause bootstrap failures.
We have no requirement to test patches on more than one target. I think
your request
This caused a bootstrap failure on AIX, and possible other architectures.
/tmp/20160608/./gcc/xgcc -B/tmp/20160608/./gcc/ -xc -S -c /dev/null -fself-test
/nasfarm/edelsohn/src/src/gcc/pretty-print.c:1246: FAIL: ASSERT_STREQ (expected,
pp_formatted_text (&pp))
cc1: internal compiler error: in fail
On 06/08/2016 02:56 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
Good idea. In the following I did it by adding 0x12345678 as a
successor argument to each test. I chose that bit pattern on the
grounds that each nybble is unique and non-zero.
I printed them with %x to make it easier (I hope) to track down
problems.
On Tue, 2016-06-07 at 12:02 +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 06/06/2016 11:28 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > + assert_pp_format ("0xcafebabe", "%wx",
> > (HOST_WIDE_INT)0xcafebabe);
>
> More interesting tests would be to have multiple arguments to test
> that
> we really used the right size for the
On 06/06/2016 11:28 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
+ assert_pp_format ("0xcafebabe", "%wx", (HOST_WIDE_INT)0xcafebabe);
More interesting tests would be to have multiple arguments to test that
we really used the right size for the varargs. Maybe append a single %d
arg with a unique bit pattern to a
This adds another set of test cases to -fself-test, this time
for the basic functionality within pretty-print.c.
Successfully bootstrapped®rtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
OK for trunk?
gcc/ChangeLog:
* pretty-print.c: Include "selftest.h".
(pp_format): Fix comment.
(selft
12 matches
Mail list logo
