public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug middle-end/43735] New: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/inline-params.c
@ 2010-04-12 19:29 hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
2010-04-13 9:11 ` [Bug middle-end/43735] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 more replies)
0 siblings, 4 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: hjl dot tools at gmail dot com @ 2010-04-12 19:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
On Linux/ia32, revision 158227 gave:
FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/inline-params.c -O2 -fwhopr execution test
Revision 158222 is OK. Revision 158225:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-04/msg00329.html
may be the cause.
--
Summary: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/inline-params.c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43735
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/43735] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/inline-params.c
2010-04-12 19:29 [Bug middle-end/43735] New: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/inline-params.c hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
@ 2010-04-13 9:11 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-04-13 11:31 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-04-13 9:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-13 09:11 -------
Confirmed.
I think the testcase is broken. We now force always-inline functions to
be inlined during early inlining (which you can't turn off completely
now, similar to IPA inlining before the patch). So we hit
/* IPA-SRA removes the arguments as dead, so we don't see their values, early
inlining inlines the functions too early to test the real IPA passes (such
as IPA-CP). */
The testcase misses a return 0. I don't know the guality too much, where
do the execute XPASSes / FAILs come from?
If I remove the always-inline attributes the tests all PASS / XFAIL.
If I remove the { "-fwhopr" } from the dg-xfail line all works as well.
I'm confused.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org, jamborm at gcc dot gnu
| |dot org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2010-04-13 09:11:07
date| |
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43735
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/43735] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/inline-params.c
2010-04-12 19:29 [Bug middle-end/43735] New: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/inline-params.c hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
2010-04-13 9:11 ` [Bug middle-end/43735] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-04-13 11:31 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-04-13 11:51 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-04-13 11:51 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-04-13 11:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-13 11:31 -------
(In reply to comment #1)
> Confirmed.
>
> I think the testcase is broken. We now force always-inline functions to
> be inlined during early inlining (which you can't turn off completely
> now, similar to IPA inlining before the patch). So we hit
>
> /* IPA-SRA removes the arguments as dead, so we don't see their values, early
> inlining inlines the functions too early to test the real IPA passes (such
> as IPA-CP). */
>
> The testcase misses a return 0. I don't know the guality too much, where
> do the execute XPASSes / FAILs come from?
As far as I remember, IPA-CP does not store the known constant values
of removed parameters in the debug info.
>
> If I remove the always-inline attributes the tests all PASS / XFAIL.
Given the new semantics of the attribute, this is probably the right
thing to do.
>
> If I remove the { "-fwhopr" } from the dg-xfail line all works as well.
>
I recall that the WHOPR XPASS was also a bit of a mystery to me but I
do not remember whether I found out why it took place. Anyway, I
believe that if you make it XFAIL, it is OK.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43735
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/43735] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/inline-params.c
2010-04-12 19:29 [Bug middle-end/43735] New: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/inline-params.c hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
2010-04-13 9:11 ` [Bug middle-end/43735] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-04-13 11:31 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-04-13 11:51 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-04-13 11:51 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-04-13 11:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-13 11:51 -------
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43735
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/43735] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/inline-params.c
2010-04-12 19:29 [Bug middle-end/43735] New: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/inline-params.c hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2010-04-13 11:51 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-04-13 11:51 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-04-13 11:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-13 11:51 -------
Subject: Bug 43735
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Apr 13 11:50:54 2010
New Revision: 158263
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=158263
Log:
2010-04-13 Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de>
PR testsuite/43735
* gcc.dg/guality/inline-params.c: Remove -fwhopr XPASS.
Modified:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/guality/inline-params.c
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43735
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-04-13 11:51 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2010-04-12 19:29 [Bug middle-end/43735] New: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/inline-params.c hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
2010-04-13 9:11 ` [Bug middle-end/43735] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-04-13 11:31 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-04-13 11:51 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-04-13 11:51 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).