On Jul 7, 2011, at 11:26 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> -/* { dg-do compile { target { { i?86-*-* rs6000-*-* alpha*-*-* x86_64-*-* }
> || { powerpc*-*-* && ilp32 } } } } */
> +/* { dg-do compile { target { { i?86-*-* rs6000-*-* alpha*-*-* x86_64-*-* }
> || { powerpc*-*-* && ia32 } } } } */
powerpc doesn't have an ia32 product?
I think this shouldn't change?
> -/* Disable the test entirely for 16-bit targets. */
> -#if __INT_MAX__ > 32767
> +/* Disable the test entirely for 16-bit and x32 targets. */
> +#if __INT_MAX__ > 32767 && (!defined __x86_64__ || defined __LP64__)
While not too important, might a dg-skip-if line be easier to read and
understand?
> -/* { dg-do compile { target { { { ! mips64 } && { ! ia64-*-* } } && { !
> spu-*-* } } } } */
> +/* { dg-do compile { target { { { { ! mips64 } && { ! ia64-*-* } } && { !
> spu-*-* } } && { ! x32 } } } } */
Hum, I worry about x86 walking away with large amounts of symbol space. Please
change to x86 && x32 or x86_x32.
> -/* { dg-do compile } */
> +/* { dg-do compile { target { x32 || lp64 } } } */
Likewise.
> OK for trunk?
Aside from the points above points, Ok. Please give Uros a day or two to weigh
in with his comments. I'm expecting that he's fine with the patch.
