On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 10:24 PM Jim Tsung-Chun Lin(林宗俊) <[email protected]> wrote:
> So there is not enough history on these 2. They were added to the repo as > -O9 back in 1997 when it looks like the testsuite was merged in a whole to > the cvs. I suspect these testcases were failing at -O3 back then. So > changing it to -O0 seems wrong and unwanted. Can you explain why you want > to change them from -O9? GCC treats -O[4-9] the same as -O3 without a > warning so there is no failure with GCC. Are you trying to compile the > testsuite with say clang? > I’m compiling these two tests with Clang, and Clang currently does not > translate -O9 to -O3 under LTO. > As a result, the linker fails because it does not recognize -O9. The Clang > driver should probably handle -O9 > by treating it as -O3 and passing -O3 to the linker. > > That said, I don’t think these tests are meant to cover the -O9 option. I > agree that we should use -O3 for both tests. > This is a GCC testsuite so changing it is not really a good idea; especially since these testcases are almost 30 years old now. Maybe you should have an extra wrapper when running this testsuite to translate -O[4-9] into -O3. Thanks, Andrew Pinski > > ------------------------------ > *寄件者:* Andrew Pinski <[email protected]> > *寄件日期:* 2025年11月20日 13:52 > *收件者:* Jim Tsung-Chun Lin(林宗俊) <[email protected]> > *副本:* [email protected] <[email protected]> > *主旨:* Re: [PATCH 1/1] Fix typo in eh49.C and eh52.C: O9 -> O0 > > [EXTERNAL MAIL] > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 9:28 PM Jim Lin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I believe there is no reason to use -O9 for these two testcases. So I > > assumed it was a typo. The number 9 is next to 0 on the keyboard. > > So there is not enough history on these 2. They were added to the repo > as -O9 back in 1997 when it looks like the testsuite was merged in a > whole to the cvs. > I suspect these testcases were failing at -O3 back then. So changing > it to -O0 seems wrong and unwanted. > Can you explain why you want to change them from -O9? GCC treats > -O[4-9] the same as -O3 without a warning so there is no failure with > GCC. Are you trying to compile the testsuite with say clang? > > Thanks, > Andrew > > > > --- > > gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.mike/eh49.C | 2 +- > > gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.mike/eh52.C | 2 +- > > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.mike/eh49.C > b/gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.mike/eh49.C > > index 1380ca02d82..ac6e52baa20 100644 > > --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.mike/eh49.C > > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.mike/eh49.C > > @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ > > // { dg-do run { xfail sparc64-*-elf arm-*-pe } } > > -// { dg-options "-fexceptions -O9" } > > +// { dg-options "-fexceptions -O0" } > > > > void main1() { > > throw 1; > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.mike/eh52.C > b/gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.mike/eh52.C > > index 18b477c098b..7f44dba265a 100644 > > --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.mike/eh52.C > > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.mike/eh52.C > > @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ > > // { dg-do run } > > -// { dg-options "-fexceptions -O9" } > > +// { dg-options "-fexceptions -O0" } > > > > int promote_mode (int mode, int *punsignedp) > > { > > -- > > 2.43.5 > > >
