RE: [avr-gcc-list] testsuite saga continues

[Wouter van Gulik]

> In the meantime, I tried to not mark "long long" as unsupported, with
> similar results.
> 
> Without "no_long_long" there are more 32 tests that fail, but less 556
> tests are marked as unsupported. Which means that 64 bit "long long"'s
> are mostly supported in fact.
> 
> The question is: are "long long"'s officially supported? Should we be
> running the tests that use them?
> 
> BTW: 64 bit long long is really hard for a 8 bit microcontroller. At
> least one of the tests (with -O0 optimization) was initially failing
> from timeout, which means that it was taking more than 500 million
> cycles to execute. Increasing the timeout to 2 billion cycles solved the
> problem, though.
> 

Well today I have found out why this could be. I am testing a new version of
the clz fixes and I also implemented some DI versions (DI = double int = 64
bit in gcc's internal terms).

To my surprise some options did not changed a thing in cpu cycles, while the
program got much shorter... So I took another look at it, and guess what...
The stack usage was to much, so that it was now pushing it values into I/O
memory including the special exit code memory.
The program now exited successful on a "push r15" :D

Can you make avrtest check on stack overflow?

Wouter