Re: RFC: Some more store.exp failures - tweak the test

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 06:22:29PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >This patch fixes the store.exp failures for ARM.  Two changes:
> >  - Change char to signed char, because some patterns match -1.  If anyone
> >    prefers changing the patterns to match 255 would work too.
> 
> Yes, but use something like `typedef signed char charest' so that the 
> function's pattern doesn't need tweaking.

OK.

> >  - Change "return l" to "return l + r".  "up; print r" doesn't work if
> >    "r" is not live across the function call; even without optimization
> >    GCC will re-use the register.  Then we lose.
> 
> As an aside, isn't that a GCC bug?  If no optimization, shouldn't "r" 
> have a single permenant location?  The user's going to expect it to 
> work, no matter how dumb their code.

Hmm, maybe.  I'll ask a couple of GCC folks what they think, but I
doubt this will ever change - -O0 code is horrible enough already.

> >I believe these changes don't impact the point of the test.  If nobody
> >disagrees with me, I'd like to commit this.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer