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

Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-07-01T22:30:28Z

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.