This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Fix PR64764 && Fix scan-tree-dump for scop-19.c
- From: Jack Howarth <howarth dot at dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- To: Dominique d'HumiÃres <dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr>
- Cc: gcc-patches Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 16:09:49 -0500
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix PR64764 && Fix scan-tree-dump for scop-19.c
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20150209172300 dot E2860105 at mailhost dot lps dot ens dot fr> <54D8F819 dot 9030709 at mentor dot com> <DFA2414C-C30B-46CD-9EB6-8E0EC53E7152 at lps dot ens dot fr> <523A5882-EDEC-4E49-A6F5-6BF1B6621C31 at lps dot ens dot fr> <CAJMcOU_FawU_zd9AmRZVFjnfKohw70HjhyMmuykQFKRbEFRg1A at mail dot gmail dot com>
Also, aren't we pretty much the only target to default to PIC? So if
the 'target' and 'nonpic' testing is failing when used in the context
of dg-warning, wouldn't that appear functional on the nonpic targets?
That is, since the nonpic test is to check for __PIC__, if that fails
in dg-warning, wouldn't it 'appear' functional on nonpic targets, no?
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 3:51 PM, Jack Howarth <howarth.at.gcc@gmail.com> wrote:
> This appears to be the first instance where 'target' and 'nonpic' have
> been used in a dg-warning.
>
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Dominique d'HumiÃres <dominiq@lps.ens.fr> wrote:
>>
>>> Le 9 fÃvr. 2015 Ã 20:01, Dominique d'HumiÃres <dominiq@lps.ens.fr> a Ãcrit :
>>>
>>>
>>>> Le 9 fÃvr. 2015 Ã 19:10, Tom de Vries <Tom_deVries@mentor.com> a Ãcrit :
>>>>
>>>> On 09-02-15 18:23, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
>>>>> Tom,
>>>>>
>>>>> After these changes I have the following regressions on x86_64-apple-darwin1[04]*:
>>>>>
>>>>> FAIL: gcc.dg/uninit-19.c (test for warnings, line 22)
>>>>> FAIL: gcc.dg/uninit-19.c (test for excess errors)
>>>>> FAIL: gcc.dg/graphite/scop-19.c scan-tree-dump-times graphite "number of SCoPs: 0" 1
>>>>>
>>>>> I can prepare and test a fix for darwin unless you beat me!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dominique,
>>>>
>>>> thanks for finding this.
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand why this breaks. Why is fpic supposed to be different for darwin?
>>>
>>> I donât either, but the tests succeeds on darwin with the following patch
>>>
>>> --- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/uninit-19.c 2015-02-09 11:38:40.000000000 +0100
>>> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/uninit-19.c 2015-02-09 19:52:26.000000000 +0100
>>> @@ -22,5 +22,5 @@ fn2 ()
>>> fn1 (l, &d, &e, &g, &i, &h, &k, n); /* 22. */
>>> }
>>>
>>> -/* { dg-warning "may be used uninitialized" "" { target nonpic } 13 } */
>>> -/* { dg-warning "may be used uninitialized" "" { target { ! nonpic } } 22 } */
>>> +/* { dg-warning "may be used uninitialized" "" { target { nonpic || x86_64-apple-darwin1[0-9]* } } 13 } */
>>> +/* { dg-warning "may be used uninitialized" "" { target { ! { nonpic || x86_64-apple-darwin1[0-9]* } } } 22 } */
>>> --- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/graphite/scop-19.c 2015-02-09 11:38:40.000000000 +0100
>>> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/graphite/scop-19.c 2015-02-09 19:55:38.000000000 +0100
>>> @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ d_growable_string_append_buffer (struct
>>> if (need > dgs->alc)
>>> d_growable_string_resize (dgs, need);
>>> }
>>> -/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "number of SCoPs: 0" 2 "graphite" { target nonpic } } } */
>>> -/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "number of SCoPs: 0" 1 "graphite" { target { ! nonpic } } } } */
>>> +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "number of SCoPs: 0" 2 "graphite" { target { nonpic || x86_64-apple-darwin1[0-9]* } } } } */
>>> +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "number of SCoPs: 0" 1 "graphite" { target { ! { nonpic || x86_64-apple-darwin1[0-9]* } } } } } */
>>> /* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "graphite" } } */
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Dominique
>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> - Tom
>>>
>>