On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Sandra Loosemore
san...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On 07/25/2012 09:57 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
I'll echo Nick's comments about arm asm in a common test.
There's no need to have anything but __asm__(); there.
Ok with that change.
Thanks! Here's the
Hi Sandra,
One suggestion - rather than having architecture specific test files,
why not just have a single generic test case with a new
dg-require-naked-attribute qualifier. That way the mcore port would be
tested as well as the ARM port.
Something like this? The code part of the patch is
On 07/24/2012 09:40 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
PR target/53633
gcc/
* target.def (warn_func_return): New hook.
* doc/tm.texi.in (TARGET_WARN_FUNC_RETURN): New hook.
* doc/tm.texi: Regenerate.
* doc/sourcebuild.texi (Effective-Target Keywords): Document
On 07/25/2012 09:57 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
I'll echo Nick's comments about arm asm in a common test.
There's no need to have anything but __asm__(); there.
Ok with that change.
Thanks! Here's the version I committed.
-Sandra
2012-07-25 Sandra Loosemore san...@codesourcery.com
Hi Sandra,
I've updated the patch
One suggestion - rather than having architecture specific test files,
why not just have a single generic test case with a new
dg-require-naked-attribute qualifier. That way the mcore port would be
tested as well as the ARM port.
I'm not set up to test
On 07/24/2012 05:18 AM, nick clifton wrote:
Hi Sandra,
I've updated the patch
One suggestion - rather than having architecture specific test files,
why not just have a single generic test case with a new
dg-require-naked-attribute qualifier. That way the mcore port would be
tested as
This is a revised version of Paul Brook's patch from two years ago:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-06/msg01088.html
I've updated the patch per the review comments from that time, and also
extended it to handle a similar warning from the C++ front end.
I have so far only tested this on
