This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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: [PATCH] Make sizetypes no longer sign-extending


> Ah, and all ACATS fails and
>
> -FAIL: gnat.dg/loop_optimization3.adb (test for excess errors)
> -FAIL: gnat.dg/loop_optimization3.adb execution test
> -FAIL: gnat.dg/test_8bitlong_overflow.adb (test for excess errors)
> -FAIL: gnat.dg/test_8bitlong_overflow.adb execution test
>
> are fixed by for example
>
> [...]
>
> thus are because array TYPE_DOMAIN is built using unsigned sizetype
> but these Ada testcases have array domains which really need signed
> types.  The above is of course a hack, but one that otherwise survives
> bootstrap / test of all languages.

Kind of a miracle if you ask me, but probably a reasonable way out for Ada.
Thanks a lot for devising it.

> Thus, we arrive at the following Ada regression status if the patch series
> is applied (plus the above incremental patch):
>
>                 === acats tests ===
>
>                 === acats Summary ===
> # of expected passes            2320
> # of unexpected failures        0
> Native configuration is x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
>
>                 === gnat tests ===
>
>
> Running target unix/
> FAIL: gnat.dg/array11.adb  (test for warnings, line 12)
> FAIL: gnat.dg/object_overflow.adb  (test for warnings, line 8)
> FAIL: gnat.dg/renaming5.adb scan-tree-dump-times optimized "goto" 2
> FAIL: gnat.dg/return3.adb scan-assembler loc 1 6
>
>                 === gnat Summary for unix/ ===
>
> # of expected passes            1093
> # of unexpected failures        4
> # of expected failures          13
> # of unsupported tests          2
>
> Running target unix//-m32
> FAIL: gnat.dg/array11.adb  (test for warnings, line 12)
> FAIL: gnat.dg/object_overflow.adb  (test for warnings, line 8)
> FAIL: gnat.dg/renaming5.adb scan-tree-dump-times optimized "goto" 2
> FAIL: gnat.dg/return3.adb scan-assembler loc 1 6
>
>                 === gnat Summary for unix//-m32 ===
>
> # of expected passes            1093
> # of unexpected failures        4
> # of expected failures          13
> # of unsupported tests          2
>
>                 === gnat Summary ===
>
> # of expected passes            2186
> # of unexpected failures        8
> # of expected failures          26
> # of unsupported tests          4
>
>
> Which I consider reasonable?

Sure, no opposition by me to applying the whole set of patches.

-- 
Eric Botcazou


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