[Bug testsuite/105620] [13 regression] g++.dg/tsan/pr88018.C fails after r13-456-geccbd7fcee5bbf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105620 pc at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #4 from pc at gcc dot gnu.org --- Revert of the move of the file that caused this issue has been pushed to trunk. Marking as FIXED.
[Bug testsuite/105620] [13 regression] g++.dg/tsan/pr88018.C fails after r13-456-geccbd7fcee5bbf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105620 pc at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2022-05-18 Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
[Bug testsuite/105620] [13 regression] g++.dg/tsan/pr88018.C fails after r13-456-geccbd7fcee5bbf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105620 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Paul Clarke : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1875214cd1ca3e8bd0121f703537eb98edd84027 commit r13-626-g1875214cd1ca3e8bd0121f703537eb98edd84027 Author: Paul A. Clarke Date: Wed May 18 15:45:56 2022 -0500 Revert move of g++.dg/pr69667.C Commit eccbd7fcee5bbfc47731e8de83c44eee2e3dcc4b moved the subject file to g++.target/powerpc. Unfortunately, test g++.dg/tsan/pr88018.C includes "../pr69667.C". Revert the move of this file. Commit 14e678a2c4a76433fd4029568d28530c921e11ee relaxed some DejaGnu directives in g++.dg/tsan/pr88018.C, given its more restrictive environment within g++.target/powerpc. Revert these changes in that file as well. 2022-05-18 Paul A. Clarke gcc/testsuite PR target/105620 * g++.target/powerpc/pr69667.C: Move to ... * g++.dg/pr69667.C: here. Also, revert recent dg directives changes.
[Bug testsuite/105620] [13 regression] g++.dg/tsan/pr88018.C fails after r13-456-geccbd7fcee5bbf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105620 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |13.0
[Bug testsuite/105620] [13 regression] g++.dg/tsan/pr88018.C fails after r13-456-geccbd7fcee5bbf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105620 Kewen Lin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org, ||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2 from Kewen Lin --- > Would it be correct to move this test from g++.dg/tsan to g++.target/powerpc > ? (Or, do I need to move pr69667.C back to its original location? Or, do I > need to update the path within pr88018.C, which seems like the worst option?) > Based on my previous experience, the including doesn't make the dg directives in the header file effective, so I guess the test case (pr88018.C) doesn't only run on powerpc. How about copying the source code (throwing those dg-*) of pr69667.C to pr88018.C to replace the include? > Did I miss this because I used `--disable-libsanitizer`, or because I just > missed that there was a FAIL for a test which I mistakenly thought was > unrelated to my changes? (There are a lot of FAILs to ignore.) Yes, I think it's due to "--disable-libsanitizer" configuration.
[Bug testsuite/105620] [13 regression] g++.dg/tsan/pr88018.C fails after r13-456-geccbd7fcee5bbf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105620
pc at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pc at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from pc at gcc dot gnu.org ---
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tsan/pr88018.C includes one of the files moved in the
patch:
```
// { dg-skip-if "" { *-*-* } { "*" } { "-O0" } }
// { dg-options "-fsanitize=thread -fno-ipa-pure-const -O1
-fno-inline-functions-called-once -w" }
#include "../pr69667.C"
```
I admit ignorance on the meaning or importance of the directory structure here.
Indeed the patch which moved pr69667.C was a small attempt to clean things up a
bit.
Would it be correct to move this test from g++.dg/tsan to g++.target/powerpc ?
(Or, do I need to move pr69667.C back to its original location? Or, do I need
to update the path within pr88018.C, which seems like the worst option?)
Did I miss this because I used `--disable-libsanitizer`, or because I just
missed that there was a FAIL for a test which I mistakenly thought was
unrelated to my changes? (There are a lot of FAILs to ignore.)
