Re: [testsuite] gcc.dg/vect/vect-50.c: combine two scans

[Janis Johnson <janis_johnson at mentor dot com>]

On 06/27/2012 05:05 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Jun 27, 2012, at 3:36 PM, Janis Johnson wrote:
>> These scans from gcc.dg/vect/vect-50.c, and others similar to them in
>> other vect tests, hurt my brain:
>>
>> /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 2 "vect" { xfail { vect_no_align } } } }  */
>> /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 2 "vect" { target vect_hw_misalign } } } */
>>
>> Both of these PASS for i686-pc-linux-gnu, causing duplicate lines in the
>> gcc test summary.  I'm pretty sure the following accomplishes the same
>> goal:
>>
>> /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 2 "vect" { xfail { vect_no_align && { ! vect_hw_misalign } } } } } */
> 
> I don't think so?  The first sets the xfail status for the testcase.  If you change the condition, you can't the xfail state for some targets, which would be wrong (without a vec person chiming in).

The two checks are run separately.  The first one runs everywhere and
is expected to fail for vect_no_align.  The second is only run for
vect_hw_misalign.  Targets for which vect_no_align is false and
vect_hw_misliang is true get two PASS reports.

> I'd like to think you can compose the two with some spelling...  I just don't think this one is it.?

No, there is no way to combine "target" and "xfail", although since we
intercept them we could presumably come up with a way to do that, with
syntax and semantics we design.

> I grepped around and found:
> 
>   /* { dg-message "does break strict-aliasing" "" { target { *-*-* && lp64 } xfail *-*-* } 8 } */
> 
> which might have the right way to spell it, though, I always test to ensure the construct does what I want.

Nope.  That should be flagged as an error by dg-message but it's
passed through GCC's process-message which ignore errors (a bug)
and simply ignores the directive.  I'm currently trying a fix to
not ignore errors from dg-error/dg-warning/dg-message and will then
fix up the broken tests.

>> That is, run the check everywhere
> 
> We don't want to run the test on other than vect_hw_misalign targets, right?
> 

I don't know, but right now it's run everywhere at least once.

Janis