This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Some tests in gcc.c-torture rely on undefined behaviour?

From: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>
To: Ian Lance Taylor <ian at airs dot com>
Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 14:46:18 -0400
Subject: Re: Some tests in gcc.c-torture rely on undefined behaviour?
References: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0507120914490.23582@charco.cs.utexas.edu> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0507121639180.15582@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <m3r7e3kgx5.fsf@gossamer.airs.com>

On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 11:39:18AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:

> I would guess that 920612-1.c, at least, could just be changed to use
> unsigned int, and it would continue to test whatever bug it was
> testing when it was originally added.
> 
The problem is somewhat more widespread now with the tree
optimizers.  In particular with old test cases.  Some of these
cases are essentially optimized into empty functions by the time
we get into the RTL passes.

We would have to audit them all and add enough external
functions, volatile markers or what-have-you to have them survive
until RTL.  Not sure if it's worth it.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Some tests in gcc.c-torture rely on undefined behaviour?
  - From: Ian Lance Taylor

References:
- Some tests in gcc.c-torture rely on undefined behaviour?
  - From: Nicholas Nethercote
- Re: Some tests in gcc.c-torture rely on undefined behaviour?
  - From: Joseph S. Myers
- Re: Some tests in gcc.c-torture rely on undefined behaviour?
  - From: Ian Lance Taylor

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]