[Bug testsuite/43959] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/builtin-cproj-1.c -O1 (test for excess errors)
dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Thu Sep 2 16:28:00 GMT 2010
------- Comment #4 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-09-02 16:27 -------
Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] FAIL:
gcc.dg/torture/builtin-cproj-1.c -O1 (test for excess errors)
On Thu, 02 Sep 2010, ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
>
> ------- Comment #3 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-02 15:24 -------
> > Please check whether
> > +/* { dg-add-options c99_runtime } */
> > +/* { dg-require-effective-target c99_runtime } */
>
> You're right that these foldings should succeed anyway, the c99_runtime should
> not be necessary. If requiring a c99 effective target eliminates the error,
> it's only because the test doesn't run anymore.
>
> The subject indicates the test fails at -O1, but I assume not -O0 or -O2. This
> leads me to guess that the failing line(s) are in the #ifdef __OPTIMIZE__
> section. These bits rely on some generic optimizations to fully fold away the
> relevant code, which may not be happening here at -O1.
>
> I don't have access to a test infrastructure ATM. So if David could please
> narrow down which line is failing to fold, it would help. Each test line here
> calls link_error(__LINE__) so if you add -fdump-tree-* you should be able to
> see which one(s) aren't folding, and hopefully why.
>
> I suspect it's something more than the c99 complex stuff.
The test also fails at -O1 on hppa-unknown-linux-gnu. This is a c99
target. It doesn't fail at -O0 or at -O2.
Attached builtin-cproj-1.c.149t.optimized.
------- Comment #5 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-09-02 16:27 -------
Created an attachment (id=21671)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21671&action=view)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43959
More information about the Gcc-bugs
mailing list