On 06/27/2012 05:05 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Jun 27, 2012, at 3:36 PM, Janis Johnson wrote:
>> These scans from gcc.dg/vect/vect-50.c, and others similar to them in
>> other vect tests, hurt my brain:
>>
>> /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 2
>> "vect" { xfail { vect_no_align } } } } */
>> /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 2
>> "vect" { target vect_hw_misalign } } } */
>>
>> Both of these PASS for i686-pc-linux-gnu, causing duplicate lines in the
>> gcc test summary. I'm pretty sure the following accomplishes the same
>> goal:
>>
>> /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 2
>> "vect" { xfail { vect_no_align && { ! vect_hw_misalign } } } } } */
>
> I don't think so? The first sets the xfail status for the testcase. If you
> change the condition, you can't the xfail state for some targets, which would
> be wrong (without a vec person chiming in).
The two checks are run separately. The first one runs everywhere and
is expected to fail for vect_no_align. The second is only run for
vect_hw_misalign. Targets for which vect_no_align is false and
vect_hw_misliang is true get two PASS reports.
> I'd like to think you can compose the two with some spelling... I just don't
> think this one is it.?
No, there is no way to combine "target" and "xfail", although since we
intercept them we could presumably come up with a way to do that, with
syntax and semantics we design.
> I grepped around and found:
>
> /* { dg-message "does break strict-aliasing" "" { target { *-*-* && lp64 }
> xfail *-*-* } 8 } */
>
> which might have the right way to spell it, though, I always test to ensure
> the construct does what I want.
Nope. That should be flagged as an error by dg-message but it's
passed through GCC's process-message which ignore errors (a bug)
and simply ignores the directive. I'm currently trying a fix to
not ignore errors from dg-error/dg-warning/dg-message and will then
fix up the broken tests.
>> That is, run the check everywhere
>
> We don't want to run the test on other than vect_hw_misalign targets, right?
>
I don't know, but right now it's run everywhere at least once.
Janis
