On Tue, 20 May 2025 at 06:27, Alexandre Oliva <ol...@adacore.com> wrote:
>
> The backport of commit 205515da82a2914d765e74ba73fd2765e1254112 to
> gcc-14 as 8b1146fe46e62f8b03bd9ddee48995794e192e82, rewriting
> gcc.target/arm/fp16-aapcs-[1234].c into check-function-bodies, requires
> the following patch for the one-character function names used in those
> tests.  Tested with gcc-14 on arm-vxworks7r2.  Ok to install?
>

Makes sense and LGTM, but I can't approve.

Thanks,

Christophe

> From: Wilco Dijkstra <wilco.dijks...@arm.com>
>
> Improve check-function-bodies by allowing single-character function names.
>
> gcc/testsuite:
>         * lib/scanasm.exp (configure_check-function-bodies): Allow single-char
>         function names.
>
> (cherry pick from commit acdc9df371fbe99e814a3f35a439531e08af79e7)
> ---
>  gcc/testsuite/lib/scanasm.exp |    6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/scanasm.exp b/gcc/testsuite/lib/scanasm.exp
> index d1c8e3b50794a..737eefc655e90 100644
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/scanasm.exp
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/scanasm.exp
> @@ -869,15 +869,15 @@ proc configure_check-function-bodies { config } {
>      # Regexp for the start of a function definition (name in \1).
>      if { [istarget nvptx*-*-*] } {
>         set up_config(start) {
> -           {^// BEGIN(?: GLOBAL|) FUNCTION DEF: ([a-zA-Z_]\S+)$}
> +           {^// BEGIN(?: GLOBAL|) FUNCTION DEF: ([a-zA-Z_]\S*)$}
>         }
>      } elseif { [istarget *-*-darwin*] } {
>         set up_config(start) {
> -           {^_([a-zA-Z_]\S+):$}
> +           {^_([a-zA-Z_]\S*):$}
>             {^LFB[0-9]+:}
>         }
>      } else {
> -       set up_config(start) {{^([a-zA-Z_]\S+):$}}
> +       set up_config(start) {{^([a-zA-Z_]\S*):$}}
>      }
>
>      # Regexp for the end of a function definition.
>
> --
> Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker            https://blog.lx.oliva.nom.br/
> Free Software Activist     FSFLA co-founder     GNU Toolchain Engineer
> More tolerance and less prejudice are key for inclusion and diversity.
> Excluding neuro-others for not behaving ""normal"" is *not* inclusive!

Reply via email to