On Thursday, January 07, 2016 10:26:28 AM Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 07/01/16 09:15, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> > In this case perhaps we should go the route of just removing the
> > target-specific option
> > altogether.
> >
> > Richard, that's the approach you recommended, right?
>
> Yes.
>
> I think if you really need to test a specific set of target flags, then
> it might be acceptable to have a duplicate of the test in dg.target/arm
> (but please put a comment in the (arm version of the) test to explain
> why it has been duplicated.
What about the following:
*** gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog ***
2016-01-08 Thomas Preud'homme <thomas.preudho...@arm.com>
* g++.dg/pr67989.C: Remove ARM-specific option.
* gcc.target/arm/pr67989.C: New file.
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr67989.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr67989.C
index
90261c450b4b9429fb989f7df62f3743017c7363..c3023557d31a21aead717fd58483c82e3e74da95
100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr67989.C
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr67989.C
@@ -1,6 +1,5 @@
/* { dg-do compile } */
/* { dg-options "-std=c++11 -O2" } */
-/* { dg-additional-options "-marm -march=armv4t" { target arm*-*-* } } */
__extension__ typedef unsigned long long int uint64_t;
namespace std __attribute__ ((__visibility__ ("default")))
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr67989.C b/gcc/testsuite/
gcc.target/arm/pr67989.C
new file mode 100644
index
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0006924e24f698711e1e501d09b5098049522ad6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr67989.C
@@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-std=c++11 -O2" } */
+/* { dg-require-effective-target arm_arch_v4t_ok } */
+/* { dg-add-options arm_arch_v4t } */
+/* { dg-additional-options "-marm" } */
+
+/* Duplicate version of the test in g++.dg to be able to run this test only
if
+ ARMv4t in ARM execution state can be targetted. Newer architecture don't
+ expose the bug this testcase was written for. */
+
+
+__extension__ typedef unsigned long long int uint64_t;
+namespace std __attribute__ ((__visibility__ ("default")))
+{
+ typedef enum memory_order
+ {
+ memory_order_seq_cst
+ } memory_order;
+}
+
+namespace std __attribute__ ((__visibility__ ("default")))
+{
+ template < typename _Tp > struct atomic
+ {
+ static constexpr int _S_min_alignment
+ = (sizeof (_Tp) & (sizeof (_Tp) - 1)) || sizeof (_Tp) > 16
+ ? 0 : sizeof (_Tp);
+ static constexpr int _S_alignment
+ = _S_min_alignment > alignof (_Tp) ? _S_min_alignment : alignof (_Tp);
+ alignas (_S_alignment) _Tp _M_i;
+ operator _Tp () const noexcept
+ {
+ return load ();
+ }
+ _Tp load (memory_order __m = memory_order_seq_cst) const noexcept
+ {
+ _Tp tmp;
+ __atomic_load (&_M_i, &tmp, __m);
+ }
+ };
+}
+
+namespace lldb_private
+{
+ namespace imp
+ {
+ }
+ class Address;
+}
+namespace lldb
+{
+ typedef uint64_t addr_t;
+ class SBSection
+ {
+ };
+ class SBAddress
+ {
+ void SetAddress (lldb::SBSection section, lldb::addr_t offset);
+ lldb_private::Address & ref ();
+ };
+}
+namespace lldb_private
+{
+ class Address
+ {
+ public:
+ const Address & SetOffset (lldb::addr_t offset)
+ {
+ bool changed = m_offset != offset;
+ }
+ std::atomic < lldb::addr_t > m_offset;
+ };
+}
+
+using namespace lldb;
+using namespace lldb_private;
+void
+SBAddress::SetAddress (lldb::SBSection section, lldb::addr_t offset)
+{
+ Address & addr = ref ();
+ addr.SetOffset (offset);
+}
Is this ok for stage3?
Best regards,
Thomas
