>> + asm volatile(
>> + " ddb %1, %2\n"
>> + " std %1, %0\n"
>> + : "=m" (c) : "f" (a), "m" (b) : );
>
> You could omit the final ":" here.
Yes, will drop it!
>
>> +
>> + report("3.0/2.0 == 1.5", c == 1.5);
>
> The indentation of the last parameter looks weird when only looking at
> this function.
>
>> +}
>> +
>> +int main(int argc, char**argv)
>> +{
>> + report_prefix_push("selftest");
>> +
>> + report("true", true);
>> + report("argc == 3", argc == 3);
>> + report("argv[0] == PROGNAME", !strcmp(argv[0], "s390x/selftest.elf"));
>> + report("argv[1] == test", !strcmp(argv[1], "test"));
>> + report("argv[2] == 123", !strcmp(argv[2], "123"));
>
> I think I'd also prefer if you could remove the indentation of the
> second parameters here.
Me too, added it because Radim proposed it. Will simply drop the
indentation.
> Also not sure whether we should really use the argv[1] and argv[2] test
> here? ... that way, you hardly can run this test manually (without
> unittests.cfg) ... I think it would be nicer if we'd had something like
> in arm/selftest.c here one day ... but ok, for a start, it's likely ok.
Mixed feelings, for now I think this should be fine.
Testing frameworks will run it via unittests.cfg
The handful of people that actually execute the test manually either now
about this or should be able to figure out what is going on here.
So I agree, that we could change this later, once everything has been
running fine for a while.
>
>> + test_fp();
>> +
>> + return report_summary();
>> +}
>> diff --git a/s390x/unittests.cfg b/s390x/unittests.cfg
>> index b1e0b1e..92e01ab 100644
>> --- a/s390x/unittests.cfg
>> +++ b/s390x/unittests.cfg
>> @@ -17,3 +17,8 @@
>> # # to check separated by a space but each check
>> # # parameter needs to be of the form <path>=<value>
>> ##############################################################################
>> +
>> +[selftest-setup]
>> +file = selftest.elf
>> +groups = selftest
>> +extra_params = -append 'test 123'
>>
>
> Thomas
>
Thanks!
--
Thanks,
David
