Hi,
I decided to spend some time looking at the large number of guality
test failures on arm. I see a number of fails with
gcc.dg/guality/pr36728-1.c as below. pr36728-2.c also fails in similar
sort of ways. Before I go adjusting too many other tests I'd like to get
some feedback regarding t
>
> Changelog:
>
> * gcc.dg/guality/pr36728-1.c: Skip some tests for arm.
>
Segher and I discussed an alternative approach - marking these as "m"
(arg1) , "m" (arg2) etc in the asm blocks also gives us the same
effect and then probably removes the need to rely on such target
markers. I've ju
On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 11:03:29AM +, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> >
> > Changelog:
> >
> > * gcc.dg/guality/pr36728-1.c: Skip some tests for arm.
> >
>
> Segher and I discussed an alternative approach - marking these as "m"
> (arg1) , "m" (arg2) etc in the asm blocks also gives us the s
On 04/02/2015 11:10, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 11:03:29AM +, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
Changelog:
* gcc.dg/guality/pr36728-1.c: Skip some tests for arm.
Segher and I discussed an alternative approach - marking these as "m"
(arg1) , "m" (arg2) etc in the asm b
On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 11:33:19AM +, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/guality/pr36728-1.c
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/guality/pr36728-1.c
> @@ -49,5 +49,6 @@ main ()
>int l = 0;
>asm ("" : "=r" (l) : "0" (l));
>a = foo (l + 1, l + 2, l + 3, l + 4, l + 5, l
On 04/02/2015 11:40, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 11:33:19AM +, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/guality/pr36728-1.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/guality/pr36728-1.c
@@ -49,5 +49,6 @@ main ()
int l = 0;
asm ("" : "=r" (l) : "0" (l));
a = foo
