[Bug tree-optimization/31496] FAIL: gcc.dg/builtins-20.c (test for excess errors)
--- Comment #8 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2009-01-15 23:45 --- Fixed with change to test. -- sje at cup dot hp dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31496
[Bug tree-optimization/31496] FAIL: gcc.dg/builtins-20.c (test for excess errors)
--- Comment #7 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2009-01-15 23:40 --- Subject: Re: FAIL: gcc.dg/builtins-20.c (test for excess errors) > I think we can close it. Any objections? No. Dave -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31496
[Bug tree-optimization/31496] FAIL: gcc.dg/builtins-20.c (test for excess errors)
--- Comment #6 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2009-01-15 22:58 --- It looks like this test is passing since the test was changed to include the #ifdef HAVE_C99_RUNTIME. It looks OK on the 4.3 branch and trunk so I think we can close it. Any objections? -- sje at cup dot hp dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sje at cup dot hp dot com http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31496
[Bug tree-optimization/31496] FAIL: gcc.dg/builtins-20.c (test for excess errors)
--- Comment #5 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-16 02:03 --- There doesn't seem to be any difference between the definitions for DEF_C99_BUILTIN and DEF_C99_C90RES_BUILTIN. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31496
[Bug tree-optimization/31496] FAIL: gcc.dg/builtins-20.c (test for excess errors)
--- Comment #4 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-16 00:21 --- Sorry, comment #3 is wrong. This change was introduced by the additions to builtins-20.c for the carg(z) -> atan2(z.i, z.r). There we have: +static tree +fold_builtin_carg(tree arglist, tree type) +{ + if (validate_arglist (arglist, COMPLEX_TYPE, VOID_TYPE)) +{ + tree atan2_fn = mathfn_built_in (type, BUILT_IN_ATAN2); + + if (atan2_fn) +{ + tree arg = builtin_save_expr (TREE_VALUE (arglist)); + tree r_arg = fold_build1 (REALPART_EXPR, type, arg); + tree i_arg = fold_build1 (IMAGPART_EXPR, type, arg); + tree newarglist = tree_cons (NULL_TREE, i_arg, + build_tree_list (NULL_TREE, r_arg)); + return build_function_call_expr (atan2_fn, newarglist); + } +} + + return NULL_TREE; +} PA-RISC HP-UX has atan2 and atan2f, but not atan2l. We have in builtins.def: DEF_C99_C90RES_BUILTIN (BUILT_IN_ATAN2F, "atan2f", BT_FN_FLOAT_FLOAT_FLOAT, ATTR _MATHFN_FPROUNDING_ERRNO) and /* Builtin that is specified by C99 and C90 reserve the name for future use. We can still recognize the builtin in C90 mode but we can't produce it implicitly. */ #undef DEF_C99_C90RES_BUILTIN #define DEF_C99_C90RES_BUILTIN(ENUM, NAME, TYPE, ATTRS) \ DEF_BUILTIN (ENUM, "__builtin_" NAME, BUILT_IN_NORMAL, TYPE, TYPE,\ true, true, !flag_isoc99, ATTRS, TARGET_C99_FUNCTIONS, true) Think we need to do something about atan2f in the backend. However, we don't have atan2l, so the test will have to be xfailed... -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31496
[Bug tree-optimization/31496] FAIL: gcc.dg/builtins-20.c (test for excess errors)
--- Comment #3 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-15 23:12 --- I believe that this test started failing when mode cases were added in the "Handle CONJ_EXPR in negate_expr_p and fold_negate_expr". Test doesn't fail on linux, so this has something to do with missing C99 functions. -- danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ghazi at caip dot rutgers ||dot edu http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31496