Hi,
I took a closer look at this test case, and I found, except that
it triggers a dejagnu bug, it is also wrong. I have tested with
a cross-compiler for target=sh-elf and found that the test case
actually FAILs because the foo.specs uses "cppruntime" which
is only referenced in gcc/config/sh/sup
On Sun, May 01, 2016 at 07:52:40AM +, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> I took a closer look at this test case, and I found, except that
> it triggers a dejagnu bug, it is also wrong. I have tested with
> a cross-compiler for target=sh-elf and found that the test case
> actually FAILs because the foo.sp
On 05/01/2016 09:52 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
Hi,
I took a closer look at this test case, and I found, except that
it triggers a dejagnu bug, it is also wrong. I have tested with
a cross-compiler for target=sh-elf and found that the test case
actually FAILs because the foo.specs uses "cppruntim
On 02.05.2016 12:26, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 05/01/2016 09:52 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I took a closer look at this test case, and I found, except that
>> it triggers a dejagnu bug, it is also wrong. I have tested with
>> a cross-compiler for target=sh-elf and found that the test c
On 05/02/2016 03:43 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
Yes, you are right. Only the original use-case seems to be
sh-superh-elf specific. But there are also spec strings
that are always available. I think adding -DFOO to
"cpp_unique_options" will work on any target, and make the
test case even more use
On Mon, 2016-05-02 at 16:13 +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 05/02/2016 03:43 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> > Yes, you are right. Only the original use-case seems to be
> > sh-superh-elf specific. But there are also spec strings
> > that are always available. I think adding -DFOO to
> > "cpp_uniqu
On 02.05.2016 23:28, Oleg Endo wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-05-02 at 16:13 +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>> On 05/02/2016 03:43 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>> Yes, you are right. Only the original use-case seems to be
>>> sh-superh-elf specific. But there are also spec strings
>>> that are always available
Oleg Endo wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-05-02 at 16:13 +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>> On 05/02/2016 03:43 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>> > Yes, you are right. Only the original use-case seems to be
>> > sh-superh-elf specific. But there are also spec strings
>> > that are always available. I think adding
Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> No, I actually fixed it, thanks. That test was done without my patch:
>
> > LAST_UPDATED: Sun May 1 13:46:11 UTC 2016 (revision 235692)
>
> svn log -r235762
>
> r235762 | edlinger | 2016-05-02 16:
