On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 01:36:20PM +0100, Rainer Orth wrote:
> The new gcc.target/i386/pr95798-?.c tests FAIL on 64-bit Solaris/x86:
>
> +FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr95798-1.c scan-assembler 1,
> 8\\\\(%rsp,%r[a-z0-9]*,8\\\\)
> +FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr95798-1.c scan-assembler 2,
> 16\\\\(%rsp,%r[a-z0-9]*,8\\\\)
> +FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr95798-1.c scan-assembler 3,
> 24\\\\(%rsp,%r[a-z0-9]*,8\\\\)
> +FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr95798-1.c scan-assembler 4,
> 32\\\\(%rsp,%r[a-z0-9]*,8\\\\)
> +FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr95798-1.c scan-assembler 5,
> 40\\\\(%rsp,%r[a-z0-9]*,8\\\\)
> +FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr95798-1.c scan-assembler 6,
> 48\\\\(%rsp,%r[a-z0-9]*,8\\\\)
> +FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr95798-1.c scan-assembler 7,
> 56\\\\(%rsp,%r[a-z0-9]*,8\\\\)
> +FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr95798-2.c scan-assembler 1,
> 8\\\\(%rsp,%r[a-z0-9]*,8\\\\)
> +FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr95798-2.c scan-assembler 2,
> 16\\\\(%rsp,%r[a-z0-9]*,8\\\\)
> +FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr95798-2.c scan-assembler 3,
> 24\\\\(%rsp,%r[a-z0-9]*,8\\\\)
> +FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr95798-2.c scan-assembler 4,
> 32\\\\(%rsp,%r[a-z0-9]*,8\\\\)
> +FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr95798-2.c scan-assembler 5,
> 40\\\\(%rsp,%r[a-z0-9]*,8\\\\)
> +FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr95798-2.c scan-assembler 6,
> 48\\\\(%rsp,%r[a-z0-9]*,8\\\\)
> +FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr95798-2.c scan-assembler 7,
> 56\\\\(%rsp,%r[a-z0-9]*,8\\\\)
>
> This happens because Solaris/amd64 defaults to -fno-omit-frame-pointer
> and can be avoided by always passing -fomit-frame-pointer.
>
> Tested on i386-pc-solaris2.11 and x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
>
> Ok for master?
Ok, thanks.
> 2021-03-02 Rainer Orth <r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de>
>
> gcc/testsuite:
> * gcc.target/i386/pr95798-1.c: Add -fomit-frame-pointer to
> dg-options.
> * gcc.target/i386/pr95798-2.c: Likewise.
Jakub
