[testsuite] Don't xfail gcc.dg/pr78973-2.c on non-ilp64 targets

Message ID yddwoq74hpm.fsf@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE
State New
Headers show
Series
  • [testsuite] Don't xfail gcc.dg/pr78973-2.c on non-ilp64 targets
Related show

Commit Message

Rainer Orth Oct. 24, 2018, 1:06 p.m.
Between 20181022 (r265393) and 20181023 (r265430), gcc.dg/pr78973-2.c
began to XPASS on a large number of targets:

+XPASS: gcc.dg/pr78973-2.c ilp32 (test for warnings, line 16)

The following patch fixes this by removing the xfail on dg-warning.
Tested on i386-pc-solaris2.11, sparc-sun-solaris2.11, and
x86_64-pc-linux-gnu (both multilibs in every case).  I'd usually just
install the patch as obvious, but am holding back since none of the
patches in that range obviously caused that.

	Rainer

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University


2018-10-24  Rainer Orth  <ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>

	* gcc.dg/pr78973-2.c: Remove xfail on dg-warning.

Comments

Jeff Law Oct. 24, 2018, 9:28 p.m. | #1
On 10/24/18 7:06 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
> Between 20181022 (r265393) and 20181023 (r265430), gcc.dg/pr78973-2.c

> began to XPASS on a large number of targets:

> 

> +XPASS: gcc.dg/pr78973-2.c ilp32 (test for warnings, line 16)

> 

> The following patch fixes this by removing the xfail on dg-warning.

> Tested on i386-pc-solaris2.11, sparc-sun-solaris2.11, and

> x86_64-pc-linux-gnu (both multilibs in every case).  I'd usually just

> install the patch as obvious, but am holding back since none of the

> patches in that range obviously caused that.

My first thought was that it was likely Richi's VRP fixes, but those are
r265391, so just outside the range.

His r265421 patch would be my next likely suspect :-)

Jeff
Rainer Orth Oct. 25, 2018, 8:15 a.m. | #2
Hi Jeff,

> On 10/24/18 7:06 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:

>> Between 20181022 (r265393) and 20181023 (r265430), gcc.dg/pr78973-2.c

>> began to XPASS on a large number of targets:

>> 

>> +XPASS: gcc.dg/pr78973-2.c ilp32 (test for warnings, line 16)

>> 

>> The following patch fixes this by removing the xfail on dg-warning.

>> Tested on i386-pc-solaris2.11, sparc-sun-solaris2.11, and

>> x86_64-pc-linux-gnu (both multilibs in every case).  I'd usually just

>> install the patch as obvious, but am holding back since none of the

>> patches in that range obviously caused that.

> My first thought was that it was likely Richi's VRP fixes, but those are

> r265391, so just outside the range.

>

> His r265421 patch would be my next likely suspect :-)


you're right: I just reverted that patch in my tree, rebuilt cc1, and
reran the test.  Now it XFAILs again for 32 bit.

	Rainer

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University
Jeff Law Oct. 25, 2018, 8:08 p.m. | #3
On 10/25/18 2:15 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
> Hi Jeff,

> 

>> On 10/24/18 7:06 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:

>>> Between 20181022 (r265393) and 20181023 (r265430), gcc.dg/pr78973-2.c

>>> began to XPASS on a large number of targets:

>>>

>>> +XPASS: gcc.dg/pr78973-2.c ilp32 (test for warnings, line 16)

>>>

>>> The following patch fixes this by removing the xfail on dg-warning.

>>> Tested on i386-pc-solaris2.11, sparc-sun-solaris2.11, and

>>> x86_64-pc-linux-gnu (both multilibs in every case).  I'd usually just

>>> install the patch as obvious, but am holding back since none of the

>>> patches in that range obviously caused that.

>> My first thought was that it was likely Richi's VRP fixes, but those are

>> r265391, so just outside the range.

>>

>> His r265421 patch would be my next likely suspect :-)

> 

> you're right: I just reverted that patch in my tree, rebuilt cc1, and

> reran the test.  Now it XFAILs again for 32 bit.

ACK.  So while that change wasn't necessarily meant to fix this
particular testcase, it does cause us to optimize earlier which in turn
could (as a side effect) expose the ranges at an earlier point in the
pipeline and allow us to generate proper warnings.

So I'd say go with your change to drop the xfail.

jeff

Patch

# HG changeset patch
# Parent  c704e85a30095c986599b2a7af488d213703bd44
Don't xfail gcc.dg/pr78973-2.c on non-ilp64 targets

diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr78973-2.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr78973-2.c
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr78973-2.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr78973-2.c
@@ -14,7 +14,7 @@  void f (int n)
 {
   if (n <= 4)
     p = __builtin_malloc (n);
-  /* { dg-warning "argument 1 range \\\[\[0-9\]+, \[0-9\]+\\\] exceeds maximum object size 4" "ilp32" { xfail { ! lp64 } } .-1 } */
+  /* { dg-warning "argument 1 range \\\[\[0-9\]+, \[0-9\]+\\\] exceeds maximum object size 4" "ilp32" { target *-*-* } .-1 } */
 }
 
 void g (unsigned n)