On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 2:30 AM, Tom de Vries <tom_devr...@mentor.com> wrote:
> On 09-02-15 09:59, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 5 Feb 2015, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>
>>> On 26-01-15 15:47, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/uninit-19.c
>>>> ===================================================================
>>>> --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/uninit-19.c (revision 0)
>>>> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/uninit-19.c (working copy)
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
>>>> +/* { dg-do compile } */
>>>> +/* { dg-options "-O -Wuninitialized" } */
>>>> +
>>>> +int a, l, m;
>>>> +float *b;
>>>> +float c, d, e, g, h;
>>>> +unsigned char i, k;
>>>> +void
>>>> +fn1 (int p1, float *f1, float *f2, float *f3, unsigned char *c1, float
>>>> *f4,
>>>> + unsigned char *c2, float *p10)
>>>> +{
>>>> + if (p1 & 8)
>>>> + b[3] = p10[a]; /* { dg-warning "may be used uninitialized" } */
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +void
>>>> +fn2 ()
>>>> +{
>>>> + float *n;
>>>> + if (l & 6)
>>>> + n = &c + m;
>>>> + fn1 (l, &d, &e, &g, &i, &h, &k, n);
>>>> +}
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Richard,
>>>
>>> this new test fails with -fpic, because fn1 is not inlined.
>>>
>>> Adding static to fn1 allows it to pass both with and without -fpic. But
>>> that
>>> change might affect whether it still serves as a regression test for this
>>> PR,
>>> I'm not sure.
>>>
>>> Another way to fix this could be to use the warning line number 22
>>> instead 13
>>> for fpic.
>>
>>
>> Either way is fine with me.
>>
>
> Committed using the method of different line number for -fpic.
>
> Thanks,
> - Tom
>
> 2015-02-09 Tom de Vries <t...@codesourcery.com>
>
> * gcc.dg/uninit-19.c: Fix warning line for fpic.
> ---
> gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/uninit-19.c | 7 +++++--
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/uninit-19.c
> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/uninit-19.c
> index 3113cab..fc7acea 100644
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/uninit-19.c
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/uninit-19.c
> @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ fn1 (int p1, float *f1, float *f2, float *f3, unsigned
> char *c1, float *f4,
> unsigned char *c2, float *p10)
> {
> if (p1 & 8)
> - b[3] = p10[a]; /* { dg-warning "may be used uninitialized" } */
> + b[3] = p10[a]; /* 13. */
> }
>
> void
> @@ -19,5 +19,8 @@ fn2 ()
> float *n;
> if (l & 6)
> n = &c + m;
> - fn1 (l, &d, &e, &g, &i, &h, &k, n);
> + 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 }
> */
> --
> 1.9.1
>
Any particular reason why this test was changed to DOS format?
--
H.J.
