[Bug testsuite/43959] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/builtin-cproj-1.c -O1 (test for excess errors)

2010-09-12 Thread dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca


--- Comment #10 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca  2010-09-12 
15:38 ---
Subject: Re:  [4.6 Regression] FAIL:
gcc.dg/torture/builtin-cproj-1.c  -O1  (test for excess errors)

I have simplified the testcase to include just the two failing portions
from line 160.  Some other lines also have failing portions.

I have attached the simplified testcase, 080t.cplxlower, and the
generated .s at -O1.  I'm not sure things go wrong in 080t.cplxlower
but it differs substantially from what I see on x86.

Dave


--- Comment #11 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca  2010-09-12 
15:38 ---
Created an attachment (id=21778)
 -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21778action=view)


--- Comment #12 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca  2010-09-12 
15:38 ---
Created an attachment (id=21779)
 -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21779action=view)


--- Comment #13 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca  2010-09-12 
15:38 ---
Created an attachment (id=21780)
 -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21780action=view)


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43959



[Bug testsuite/43959] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/builtin-cproj-1.c -O1 (test for excess errors)

2010-09-07 Thread danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org


--- Comment #6 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-09-07 23:23 ---
Subject: Bug 43959

Author: danglin
Date: Tue Sep  7 23:23:30 2010
New Revision: 163979

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=163979
Log:
PR testsuite/43959
* gcc.dg/torture/builtin-cproj-1.c: Require c99 runtime.


Modified:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/builtin-cproj-1.c


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43959



[Bug testsuite/43959] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/builtin-cproj-1.c -O1 (test for excess errors)

2010-09-07 Thread ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org


--- Comment #7 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-09-07 23:43 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
 Subject: Bug 43959
 Author: danglin
 Date: Tue Sep  7 23:23:30 2010
 New Revision: 163979
 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=163979
 Log:
 PR testsuite/43959
 * gcc.dg/torture/builtin-cproj-1.c: Require c99 runtime.
 Modified:
 trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
 trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/builtin-cproj-1.c

This change isn't necessary or correct, the test should (and does) fold away
all references to cproj on non-c99 platforms.  The bug on hppa at -O1 will
still occur on hppa-linux.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43959



[Bug testsuite/43959] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/builtin-cproj-1.c -O1 (test for excess errors)

2010-09-07 Thread dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca


--- Comment #8 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca  2010-09-08 
00:15 ---
Subject: Re:  [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/builtin-cproj-1.c  -O1 
(test for excess errors)

 This change isn't necessary or correct, the test should (and does) fold away
 all references to cproj on non-c99 platforms.  The bug on hppa at -O1 will
 still occur on hppa-linux.

I will revert and look at xfailing on hppa.

All references to cproj are not folded away, possibly because of return
slot optimization.  See attachment.

Either the test is wrong or there is a tree optimization problem.  If
the latter is true, the component should be changed.

Dave


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43959



[Bug testsuite/43959] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/builtin-cproj-1.c -O1 (test for excess errors)

2010-09-07 Thread danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org


--- Comment #9 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-09-08 00:24 ---
Subject: Bug 43959

Author: danglin
Date: Wed Sep  8 00:24:44 2010
New Revision: 163985

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=163985
Log:
Revert
PR testsuite/43959
* gcc.dg/torture/builtin-cproj-1.c: Require c99 runtime.


Modified:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/builtin-cproj-1.c


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43959



[Bug testsuite/43959] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/builtin-cproj-1.c -O1 (test for excess errors)

2010-09-02 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org


--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-09-02 10:46 ---
Please check whether

Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/builtin-cproj-1.c
===
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/builtin-cproj-1.c  (revision 163766)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/builtin-cproj-1.c  (working copy)
@@ -7,6 +7,8 @@

 /* { dg-do link } */
 /* { dg-add-options ieee } */
+/* { dg-add-options c99_runtime } */
+/* { dg-require-effective-target c99_runtime } */

 /* All references to link_error should go away at compile-time.  The
argument is the __LINE__ number.  It appears in the tree dump file

fixes this (and commit it then).  But I think the foldings should succeed
anyway, so please investigate.


-- 

rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |WAITING


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43959



[Bug testsuite/43959] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/builtin-cproj-1.c -O1 (test for excess errors)

2010-09-02 Thread ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org


--- Comment #3 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-09-02 15:24 ---
 Please check whether
 +/* { dg-add-options c99_runtime } */
 +/* { dg-require-effective-target c99_runtime } */

You're right that these foldings should succeed anyway, the c99_runtime should
not be necessary.  If requiring a c99 effective target eliminates the error,
it's only because the test doesn't run anymore.

The subject indicates the test fails at -O1, but I assume not -O0 or -O2.  This
leads me to guess that the failing line(s) are in the #ifdef __OPTIMIZE__
section.  These bits rely on some generic optimizations to fully fold away the
relevant code, which may not be happening here at -O1.

I don't have access to a test infrastructure ATM.  So if David could please
narrow down which line is failing to fold, it would help.  Each test line here
calls link_error(__LINE__) so if you add -fdump-tree-* you should be able to
see which one(s) aren't folding, and hopefully why.

I suspect it's something more than the c99 complex stuff.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43959



[Bug testsuite/43959] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/builtin-cproj-1.c -O1 (test for excess errors)

2010-09-02 Thread dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca


--- Comment #4 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca  2010-09-02 
16:27 ---
Subject: Re:  [4.6 Regression] FAIL:
gcc.dg/torture/builtin-cproj-1.c  -O1  (test for excess errors)

On Thu, 02 Sep 2010, ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:

 
 
 --- Comment #3 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-09-02 15:24 ---
  Please check whether
  +/* { dg-add-options c99_runtime } */
  +/* { dg-require-effective-target c99_runtime } */
 
 You're right that these foldings should succeed anyway, the c99_runtime should
 not be necessary.  If requiring a c99 effective target eliminates the error,
 it's only because the test doesn't run anymore.
 
 The subject indicates the test fails at -O1, but I assume not -O0 or -O2.  
 This
 leads me to guess that the failing line(s) are in the #ifdef __OPTIMIZE__
 section.  These bits rely on some generic optimizations to fully fold away the
 relevant code, which may not be happening here at -O1.
 
 I don't have access to a test infrastructure ATM.  So if David could please
 narrow down which line is failing to fold, it would help.  Each test line here
 calls link_error(__LINE__) so if you add -fdump-tree-* you should be able to
 see which one(s) aren't folding, and hopefully why.
 
 I suspect it's something more than the c99 complex stuff.

The test also fails at -O1 on hppa-unknown-linux-gnu.  This is a c99
target.  It doesn't fail at -O0 or at -O2.

Attached builtin-cproj-1.c.149t.optimized.


--- Comment #5 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca  2010-09-02 
16:27 ---
Created an attachment (id=21671)
 -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21671action=view)


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43959



[Bug testsuite/43959] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/builtin-cproj-1.c -O1 (test for excess errors)

2010-05-02 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org


--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-05-02 15:26 ---
They are C99 but the testcase does not require c99-targts.


-- 

rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
  Component|middle-end  |testsuite
 Ever Confirmed|0   |1
   Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2010-05-02 15:26:05
   date||
Summary|FAIL:   |[4.6 Regression] FAIL:
   |gcc.dg/torture/builtin- |gcc.dg/torture/builtin-
   |cproj-1.c  -O1  (test for   |cproj-1.c  -O1  (test for
   |excess errors)  |excess errors)
   Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43959