This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PR target/85401] Add test-cases
- From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- To: coypu at sdf dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2019 14:28:55 -0600
- Subject: Re: [PR target/85401] Add test-cases
- References: <20190914151504.GA21805@SDF.ORG> <20190928095200.GA20382@SDF.ORG> <5a279dc6-3707-5a85-d089-02f3c25965a4@redhat.com> <20190930204543.GA1144@SDF.ORG> <63790bcb-4e52-f428-41cb-6160195b4f0f@redhat.com> <20191004194333.GA3137@SDF.ORG>
On 10/4/19 1:43 PM, coypu@sdf.org wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 01:26:16PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 9/30/19 2:45 PM, coypu@sdf.org wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 11:46:24AM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
>>>> Yes, the patch is mostly ok. You can commit it into the trunk after
>>>> applying changes mentioned below. If you do not have a write access, let me
>>>> know I'll commit the patch by myself.
>>>
>>> I don't have commit access. It would be nice if you committed it :)
>> I took care of the nits and committed the patch.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> It would be nice to add a small test too. But it is not obligatory for this
>>>> case as the patch is obvious and it might be hard to create a small test to
>>>> reproduce the bug.
>>>
>>> I have the C code that produces this failure. I can creduce it, but I'm
>>> not sure there's a relationship between it and the bug.
>>> Doing unrelated changes (adding instruction scheduling) to vax also hid it.
>>>
>>> Is this kind of test still valuable?
>> Often they are.
>>
>> jeff
>
> Here's the two tests I used. It might be too machine-made.
> One is in the vax specific directory since it needed -fno-pic.
>
>
> 2019-10-04 Maya Rashish <coypu@sdf.org>
> * gcc.c-torture/compile/pr85401-2.c: New test.
> * gcc.target/vax/pr85401-1.c: New test.
ISTM that both should be in c-torture. We can use dg-* things in there too.
jeff