Re: RFC Test suite fix testing of no_trampolines

2 msg	Doubt about scheduling
3 msg	omp workshare (PR35423) & beginner questions
1 msg	TREE_ADDRESSABLE flag
1 msg	gcc-4.2-20080409 is now available
4 msg	Where is scheduling going wrong? - GCC-4.1.2
3 msg	sizeof(array) with variable-length array parameter
12 msg	more m32c brokenness
20 msg	Problem with reloading in a new backend...
1 msg	KwGdOwMp 4329040559400834703
5 msg	Problem with Fix for PR 35163 ?
2 msg	gcc4.x handling of switch(enum)
1 msg	gcc-4.1-20080407 is now available
1 msg	An x86 gcc 4.3 branch
3 msg	[RFC] Implement __builtin_bswap* for ARMv6
16 msg	Copyright assignment wiki page
8 msg	improving auto increment expressions detection ...
118 msg	US-CERT Vulnerability Note VU#162289
2 msg	comments do not match code.

RFC Test suite fix testing of no_trampolines
\ Andy H (5 Apr 2008)
. \ Paolo Bonzini (5 Apr 2008)
. \ Janis Johnson (7 Apr 2008)
. . \ Andy H (7 Apr 2008)

2 msg	Translating and proofreading your professional ...

Subject:	Re: RFC Test suite fix testing of no_trampolines
Group:	Gcc
From:	Andy H
Date:	7 Apr 2008

Thank you so much.

I can test it easily and will let you know of any divergence from
original other than the those you mention.

Andy

Janis Johnson wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-04-05 at 06:57 -0400, Andy H wrote:
>
>> There are several test in testsuite that use trampolines that are still
>> run with dejagnu switch set to no_trampolines.
>>
>> Its on my TODO list for AVR target but a recent email reminded me that
>> it affects testing of other targets than can't or won't support
>> trampolines.
>>
>> Theres an old patch by Björn Haase that was approved but not committed
>> in 2005 that addressed many of these
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-05/msg01919.html
>>
>> Essentially excluding them with dg-require-effective-target
>>
>> I am going to create an updated version of this. I realize that some of
>> the target-supports changes are no longer needed.
>>
>> Any comments?
>>
>
> Except for check_effective_target_int_larger_than_16_bits, that
> patch still looks OK to me. In the meantime there are new
> effective-target checks for int16 and int32plus that could
> be used instead.
>
> I wouldn't want to check in a three-year-old patch without
> testing it, so if you can update it and test on avr, that would
> be great. If it works, it's preapproved. Post it to gcc-patches
> and let me know if you need me to check it in.
>
> Janis
>