This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Testcase for -fssa bug
- To: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>
- Subject: Re: Testcase for -fssa bug
- From: Zack Weinberg <zack at wolery dot cumb dot org>
- Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 10:41:12 -0700
- Cc: aj at suse dot de, law at cygnus dot com, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <200005191630.MAA01254@caip.rutgers.edu>
On Fri, May 19, 2000 at 12:30:37PM -0400, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
> > From: Jeffrey A Law <law@cygnus.com>
> >
> > In message <u8snvey37i.fsf@gromit.rhein-neckar.de>you write:
> > >
> > > As discussed with Richard and Ulrich on gcc-bugs, here's a testcase to
> > > show a bug with -fssa.
> > >
> > > Can I commit this?
> > >
> > > Andreas
> > >
> > > 2000-05-19 Andreas Jaeger <aj@suse.de>
> > >
> > > * gcc.dg/ssa-1.c: Testcase for SSA bug from Ulrich Drepper.
> >
> > Actually, I think I'd prefer the test in c-torture/execute and that
> > we change the c-torture framework to test -fssa.
> >
> > Other opinions?
> > jeff
>
> Agreed.
>
> What I don't like about the dg framework is that it only runs tests
> through one -O# level. I've seen many cases where individual test
> cases originally were meant for one -O# level but years later
> triggered at some other one. We lose this sanity check in the dg
> framework.
Not cycling through -O levels can be desirable, too. I put
preprocessor tests in gcc.dg partially because it doesn't waste time
compiling the same chunk of code over and over again. These are tests
where optimization can't possibly make a difference, the only thing we
care about is whether the preprocessor mangled the source. It also
means you get one failure report instead of six.
zw