Hi!
On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 16:46:19 +0100, Tom de Vries <tom_devr...@mentor.com> wrote:
> I've run the gcc testsuite for target nvptx-none and ran into "test for
> excess errors" FAILs due to:
> ...
> sorry, unimplemented: target cannot support alloca.
> ...
>
> This patch marks those testcases as requiring alloca.
I observed that this test case:
> --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr71881.c (revision 246278)
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr71881.c (working copy)
> @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
> /* { dg-do compile } */
> +/* { dg-require-effective-target alloca } */
> /* { dg-additional-options "-g" } */
... as well as this test case:
> --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr79413.c (revision 246278)
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr79413.c (working copy)
> @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
> +/* { dg-require-effective-target alloca } */
> /* PR c/79413 */
... previously did PASS for anything but "-O0" (that is, any "alloca"
usage got optimized away). Now changed as follows:
[-FAIL:-]{+UNSUPPORTED:+} gcc.c-torture/compile/pr79413.c -O0 [-(test
for excess errors)-]
[-PASS:-]{+UNSUPPORTED:+} gcc.c-torture/compile/pr79413.c -O1 [-(test
for excess errors)-]
[-PASS:-]{+UNSUPPORTED:+} gcc.c-torture/compile/pr79413.c -O2 [-(test
for excess errors)-]
[-PASS:-]{+UNSUPPORTED:+} gcc.c-torture/compile/pr79413.c -O3 -g [-(test
for excess errors)-]
[-PASS:-]{+UNSUPPORTED:+} gcc.c-torture/compile/pr79413.c -Os [-(test
for excess errors)-]
[-FAIL:-]{+UNSUPPORTED:+} gcc.dg/torture/pr71881.c -O0 [-(test for
excess errors)-]
[-PASS:-]{+UNSUPPORTED:+} gcc.dg/torture/pr71881.c -O1 [-(test for
excess errors)-]
[-PASS:-]{+UNSUPPORTED:+} gcc.dg/torture/pr71881.c -O2 [-(test for
excess errors)-]
[-PASS:-]{+UNSUPPORTED:+} gcc.dg/torture/pr71881.c -O3
-fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions
[-(test for excess errors)-]
[-PASS:-]{+UNSUPPORTED:+} gcc.dg/torture/pr71881.c -O3 -g [-(test for
excess errors)-]
[-PASS:-]{+UNSUPPORTED:+} gcc.dg/torture/pr71881.c -Os [-(test for
excess errors)-]
Would it be useful to XFAIL these for "-O0" only (along with a comment),
so that we continue testing that any "alloca" usage gets optimized away?
(Just an idea.)
Grüße
Thomas
