------- 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)



Reply via email to