On 11/8/23 09:00, Joern Rennecke wrote:
On Fri, 29 Sept 2023 at 14:54, Jeff Law wrote:
... Joern can you post a follow-up manual twiddle so
that other ports can follow your example and avoid this problem?
THanks,
jeff
The attached patch makes the scan-assembler* directives ignore the
On Fri, 29 Sept 2023 at 14:54, Jeff Law wrote:
> ... Joern can you post a follow-up manual twiddle so
> that other ports can follow your example and avoid this problem?
>
> THanks,
>
> jeff
The attached patch makes the scan-assembler* directives ignore the LTO
sections.
Regression tested
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 at 05:48, Joern Rennecke
wrote:
> So I propose we look at the first character of the regexp, and if it's neither
> ^ nor \ (neither caret nor backslash), we consider the regexp un-anchored,
> and prepend ^[^"]* , so it won't allow a match after a double quote.
Looking at the
On Sat, 30 Sept 2023 at 22:12, Joern Rennecke
wrote:
> Also, we might have different directives for not scanning in LTO sections -
> or just ignoring .ascii . Or maybe the other way round - you have to do
> something special if you want to scan inside strings, and by default we
> don't look
On Fri, 29 Sept 2023 at 14:54, Jeff Law wrote:
> So I recommend we go forward with Joern's approach (so consider that an
> ACK for the trunk). Joern can you post a follow-up manual twiddle so
> that other ports can follow your example and avoid this problem?
The manual... so not in the
On 9/27/23 17:21, Vineet Gupta wrote:
On 9/27/23 13:14, Jeff Law wrote:
It would help to describe how these patterns were under specified so
that folks don't continue to make the same mistake as new tests get
added.
dg-final scan-assembler, scan-assembler-not, and scan-assembler-times
On 9/27/23 13:14, Jeff Law wrote:
It would help to describe how these patterns were under specified so
that folks don't continue to make the same mistake as new tests get
added.
dg-final scan-assembler, scan-assembler-not, and scan-assembler-times
use a tcl regular expression (often
On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 1:14 PM Jeff Law wrote:
>
>
>
> On 9/27/23 12:22, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Sept 2023 at 18:22, Jeff Law wrote:
> >
> >> It would help to describe how these patterns were under specified so
> >> that folks don't continue to make the same mistake as new tests
On 9/27/23 12:22, Joern Rennecke wrote:
On Wed, 27 Sept 2023 at 18:22, Jeff Law wrote:
It would help to describe how these patterns were under specified so
that folks don't continue to make the same mistake as new tests get added.
dg-final scan-assembler, scan-assembler-not, and
On Wed, 27 Sept 2023 at 18:22, Jeff Law wrote:
> It would help to describe how these patterns were under specified so
> that folks don't continue to make the same mistake as new tests get added.
dg-final scan-assembler, scan-assembler-not, and scan-assembler-times
use a tcl regular expression
On 9/27/23 03:26, Joern Rennecke wrote:
I got tired of scan tests failing when they have an underspecified
pattern that matches LTO information, so I did a global replace for
the most common form of such scan patterns in the gcc.target/riscv
testsuite.
regression tested for:
riscv-sim
I got tired of scan tests failing when they have an underspecified
pattern that matches LTO information, so I did a global replace for
the most common form of such scan patterns in the gcc.target/riscv
testsuite.
regression tested for:
riscv-sim
12 matches
Mail list logo
