This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: ira.c update_equiv_regs patch causes gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr43920-2.c regression
- From: Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana dot radhakrishnan at foss dot arm dot com>
- To: Alex Velenko <Alex dot Velenko at arm dot com>, Marcus Shawcroft <marcus dot shawcroft at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>, Shiva Chen <shiva0217 at gmail dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "jakub at redhat dot com" <jakub at redhat dot com>, Richard Biener <rguenther at suse dot de>
- Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 14:22:04 +0100
- Subject: Re: ira.c update_equiv_regs patch causes gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr43920-2.c regression
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAH=PD7Z2s3Yw+nWkhKBzEVrvg=aeBLhL-rZJQ=VtpgOjZZ+DLA at mail dot gmail dot com> <55312EDF dot 90005 at redhat dot com> <CAH=PD7a0ofWfFBnJqD=6e5uYJY8v_GRjcvRuOBvy-x3EZNzFJg at mail dot gmail dot com> <5535DFB5 dot 3020003 at redhat dot com> <55B7C784 dot 4010104 at arm dot com> <55B95039 dot 3070803 at redhat dot com> <55BB5640 dot 2060508 at arm dot com> <55D2FA1D dot 1060508 at arm dot com> <CAFqB+PxKbWxZyc4W8Oa3AQhG3baA0UtMFfbcX1niRG0jOQinDQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <55D30144 dot 6010302 at arm dot com>
> Hi Marcus,
>
> On fsf-4.9 I see the test pass:
>
> PASS: gcc.target/arm/pr43920-2.c (test for excess errors)
> PASS: gcc.target/arm/pr43920-2.c scan-assembler-times pop 2
> PASS: gcc.target/arm/pr43920-2.c scan-assembler-times beq 3
> Executing on host: arm-none-eabi-size pr43920-2.o (timeout = 300)
> spawn arm-none-eabi-size pr43920-2.o
> text data bss dec hex filename
> 54 0 0 54 36 pr43920-2.o
> text size is 54
> PASS: gcc.target/arm/pr43920-2.c object-size text <= 54
>
> So this is a regression in fsf-5.
Sorry about the terse email earlier - don't know what thunderbird did with me and I was running off on an urgent private errand.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64916#c3 suggests that this test case worked by fluke in earlier versions of the compiler, and the debate has been whether this is a regression or not.
If in case it is not deemed to be a regression based on that comment, we should just XFAIL the test and move on.
Given Jakub's away I'm CCing richi on this discussion.
regards
Ramana
>
> Kind regards,
> Alex
>