On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 3:38 AM, Segher Boessenkool
<seg...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 07:38:04PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 4:40 AM, Segher Boessenkool
>> <seg...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > The new split-1.c testcase fails on targets that do not support split
>> > stack (like 32-bit PowerPC Linux). This patch fixes it by only running
>> > the testcase if split stack is supported. It also adds the reorder
>> > flag to the options, so that the test actually tests what it says it
>> > tests.
>> >
>> > Is this okay for trunk?
>>
>> Whoops, sorry about that.
>>
>> Adding dg-require-effective-target split_stack is fine. Adding an
>> explicit -freorder-blocks-and-partition option is not. Adding the
>> explicit option will cause the test to fail when using gold, as the
>> two options are not compatible. The point of the test is to test that
>> using -fsplit-stack disables the default enabling of
>> -freorder-blocks-and-partition.
>
> Ah, I see. Could you change the comment then, to say what we are
> really testing?
Sure. Updated as follows. Committed to mainline.
Ian
2017-06-12 Ian Lance Taylor <i...@golang.org>
* gcc.dg/tree-prof/split-1.c: Require split_stack, don't require
freorder. Update comment to explain test.
Index: gcc.dg/tree-prof/split-1.c
===================================================================
--- gcc.dg/tree-prof/split-1.c (revision 249128)
+++ gcc.dg/tree-prof/split-1.c (working copy)
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
-/* Test case that we don't get a link-time error when using
- -fsplit-stack with -freorder-blocks-and-partition. */
-/* { dg-require-effective-target freorder } */
+/* Test that we don't get a link-time error when using -fsplit-stack
+ due to implicit enabling of -freorder-blocks-and-partition. */
+/* { dg-require-effective-target split_stack } */
/* { dg-options "-O2 -fsplit-stack" } */
extern unsigned int sleep (unsigned int);
