On Fri, 2016-10-14 at 21:27 +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 10/14/2016 09:25 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> >
> > The behavior probably should be that it runs the remainder of the
> > RTL
> > passes from some specified point, and generates valid assembler (so
> > that we can have dg-do DejaGnu
On 10/14/2016 09:25 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
The behavior probably should be that it runs the remainder of the RTL
passes from some specified point, and generates valid assembler (so
that we can have dg-do DejaGnu tests).
Actually I had imagined that tests would specify before and after RTL
On Fri, 2016-10-14 at 11:33 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Bernd Schmidt
> wrote:
> > On 10/13/2016 03:49 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > >
> > > Does it really run a single pass only? Thus you can't do a { dg
> > > -do run }
> > > test
> > >
On Thu, 2016-10-13 at 15:49 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 5:58 PM, David Malcolm
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 16:09 +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > > On Wed, 5 Oct 2016, David Malcolm wrote:
> > >
> > > > @@ -1752,6 +1759,35 @@
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 10/14/2016 11:33 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> Ok, so at least for the GIMPLE FE side I thought it's useful to allow
>> a correctness verification with something simpler than pattern matching
>> on the pass output.
On 10/14/2016 11:33 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
Ok, so at least for the GIMPLE FE side I thought it's useful to allow
a correctness verification with something simpler than pattern matching
on the pass output. By means of doing runtime verification of an expected
result (this necessarily
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 10/13/2016 03:49 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> Does it really run a single pass only? Thus you can't do a { dg-do run }
>> test
>> with __RTL?
>
>
> I think that's really not the intended use-case. To my mind this
On 10/13/2016 03:49 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
Does it really run a single pass only? Thus you can't do a { dg-do run } test
with __RTL?
I think that's really not the intended use-case. To my mind this is for
unit-testing: ensuring that a given rtl pass performs the expected
transformation
On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 5:58 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 16:09 +, Joseph Myers wrote:
>> On Wed, 5 Oct 2016, David Malcolm wrote:
>>
>> > @@ -1752,6 +1759,35 @@ c_parser_declaration_or_fndef (c_parser
>> > *parser, bool fndef_ok,
>> >
On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 16:09 +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Oct 2016, David Malcolm wrote:
>
> > @@ -1752,6 +1759,35 @@ c_parser_declaration_or_fndef (c_parser
> > *parser, bool fndef_ok,
> >c_parser_skip_to_end_of_block_or_statement (parser);
> >return;
> > }
> > +
>
10 matches
Mail list logo