diff options
author | Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp@bitrange.com> | 2020-08-09 04:33:34 +0200 |
---|---|---|
committer | Giuliano Belinassi <giuliano.belinassi@usp.br> | 2020-08-17 15:07:51 -0300 |
commit | db37dcbd549a30677393f1c71aab3230abf58d30 (patch) | |
tree | f1ed78b5bb989688f1f32f7228253806cdab6d4a /gcc/cp/constexpr.c | |
parent | 16bfa73e8ffa8e1d6bbcd198f50e17ea6af5ac62 (diff) | |
download | gcc-db37dcbd549a30677393f1c71aab3230abf58d30.zip gcc-db37dcbd549a30677393f1c71aab3230abf58d30.tar.gz gcc-db37dcbd549a30677393f1c71aab3230abf58d30.tar.bz2 |
gcc.dg/pr44194-1.c: Skip for mmix.
The test makes sense only for targets that return the
"struct { int a, b, c; }" in registers (not in memory).
Starting a skip-construct is IMHO better than another iteration of
that obscuring "{ ... && { ! mytarget-*-* } }". New targets can just
append to the list without additional {}:s. I chose not to "convert"
any of the previous exclusions, as without targets to test, I'd surely
mess up {}-pairs.
A new effective_target would be even better, but such a
check_effective_target_returns_struct_in_memory (or complementary,
_in_registers) would surely have to be parametrized on the size and
type of the returned blob.
Maybe best to restrict to just x86_64, as seems to have been the
original problem target.
gcc/testsuite:
* gcc.dg/pr44194-1.c: Skip for mmix.
Diffstat (limited to 'gcc/cp/constexpr.c')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions