This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Skip gcc.dg/tree-ssa/isolate-*.c for AVR Target
- From: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "K_s, Vishnu" <Vishnu dot K_s at atmel dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2014 11:45:53 +0200
- Subject: Re: Skip gcc.dg/tree-ssa/isolate-*.c for AVR Target
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <512195FE6C78B243B073F23FF584A73361F93A4D at penmbx01> <533ED1C9 dot 7020504 at redhat dot com>
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 03/28/14 04:16, K_s, Vishnu wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> The tests added in gcc.dg/tree-ssa/isolate-*.c is failing for AVR target,
>> Because the isolate erroneous path pass needs -fdelete-null-pointer-checks
>> option to be enabled. For AVR target that option is disabled, this cause
>> the tests to fail. Following Patch skip the isolate-* tests if
>> "keeps_null_pointer_checks" is true.
>>
>> 2014-03-28 Vishnu K S <Vishnu.k_s@atmel.com >
>>
>> * gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/isolate-1.c: Skip test for AVR
>> * gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/isolate-2.c: Ditto
>> * gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/isolate-3.c: Ditto
>> * gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/isolate-4.c: Ditto
>> * gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/isolate-5.c: Ditto
>
> This is fine for the trunk. Please go ahead and install.
>
> However, we generally discourage ports from turning off passes like this and
> particularly so without a comment as to why a pass is turned off.
>
> That code was added to the AVR port here:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-03/msg01968.html
>
>
> If you could add a comment to the AVR port indicating that
> delete-null-pointer-checks is disabled because the hardware does not fault
> on a NULL dereference, it would be greatly appreciated. Consider that
> comment addition pre-approved, just post it to the list for archival
> purposes.
Note that it is recommended (and documented) practice to treat
-fdelete-null-pointer-checks that way for targets that support objects
starting at 0.
Richard.
> Thanks,
> Jeff
>
>