From 3684bbb022cd75da55e1457673f269980aa12cdf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Hans-Peter Nilsson Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2020 20:38:06 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] testsuite: effective_target_march_option: support checking for -march=* * lib/target-supports.exp (effective_target_march_option): New. I see no (other) way to, depending on the absence of an option, add an option for a specific target. For gcc.dg/torture/pr26515.c and cris-elf, you get an error for supplying multiple (different) -march=... options (where that error is desirable), like testing cris-elf with RUNTESTFLAGS=--target_board=cris-sim/arch=v8, where otherwise -march=v10 and -march=v8 will both be given, and the test would fail. For historians, this was accidentally misordered and committed after the (first) patch using march_option. Oops. --- gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog | 1 + gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp | 4 ++++ 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+) diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog b/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog index 21d31a5c6b0..c5d3ce956ed 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog +++ b/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@ -march=v10 option on target ! march_option. * gcc.target/cris/asm-v10.S, gcc.target/cris/inasm-v10.c, gcc.target/cris/sync-1-v10.c: Similar. + * lib/target-supports.exp (effective_target_march_option): New. 2020-01-19 Thomas König diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp index 79166986c77..cdee31e2413 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp +++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp @@ -2477,6 +2477,10 @@ proc check_effective_target_ti_c64xp { } { }] } +# Check if a -march=... option is given, as part of (earlier) options. +proc check_effective_target_march_option { } { + return [check-flags [list "" { *-*-* } { "-march=*" } { "" } ]] +} proc check_alpha_max_hw_available { } { return [check_runtime alpha_max_hw_available { -- 2.30.2