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] Fix PR64242


On 12/3/18 9:25 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> Here is a fix for the testcase, so that it doesn't FAIL pretty much
> everywhere.
> 
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 04:07:31PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> 	PR middle-end/64242
>>> 	* gcc.c-torture/execute/pr64242.c: New test.
>> THanks for tracking this down.  I'd like to have this run through my
>> next testing cycle, so I went ahead and installed  it for you.
> 
> What I've tested:
> 1) x86_64-linux {-m32,-m64} - without the testcase patch, the testcase FAILs
>    without or with the builtins.c change; with the testcase patch and
>    witout the builtins.c change, there is
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr64242.c   -O2  execution test
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr64242.c   -O3 -g  execution test
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr64242.c   -Os  execution test
>    for -m32 and no FAILs for -m64, with the builtins.c change the tests
>    passes on both -m32 and -m64
> 2) powerpc64-linux {-m32,-m64} - without the testcase patch, the testcase
>    FAILs without and with the builtins.c change for -m32.  With the testcase
>    patch and without the builtins.c change, there is
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr64242.c   -O0  execution test
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr64242.c   -O1  execution test
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr64242.c   -O2  execution test
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr64242.c   -O3 -g  execution test
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr64242.c   -Os  execution test
>    for -m32 and
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr64242.c   -O0  execution test
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr64242.c   -O1  execution test
>    for -m64, with the builtins.c change everything passes
> 3) aarch64-linux - both without and with the testcase patch, the
>    testcase FAILs without the builtins.c change and passes with it
> 
> Ok for trunk?
> 
> 2018-12-03  Jakub Jelinek  <jakub@redhat.com>
> 
> 	PR middle-end/64242
> 	* gcc.c-torture/execute/pr64242.c (foo, bar): New functions.
> 	(p): Make it void *volatile instead of volatile void *.
> 	(q): New variable.
> 	(main): Add a dummy 32-byte aligned variable and escape its address.
> 	Don't require that the two __builtin_alloca (0) calls return the
> 	same address, just require that their difference is smaller than
> 	1024 bytes.
Yea,  my tester fell over the new test on multiple targets.  THanks for
fixing it up.

OK
jeff


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