From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id AC9583858430; Thu, 27 Jan 2022 22:51:03 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org AC9583858430
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug testsuite/104200] [12 Regression] FAIL:
 gcc.target/aarch64/atomic-inst-cas.c (test for excess errors) fails
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2022 22:51:03 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: testsuite
X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: testsuite-fail
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: everconfirmed assigned_to cf_reconfirmed_on
 bug_status
Message-ID: <bug-104200-4-VVp2ikn01k@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-104200-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-104200-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2022 22:51:03 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D104200

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1
           Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org      |pinskia at gcc dot =
gnu.org
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2022-01-27
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |ASSIGNED

--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I am going to fix this testcase.
The warning is expected, the code does check at runtime not to invoke
__atomic_compare_exchange_n with invalid orderings.

    /* The success memory ordering must be at least as strong as        \
       the failure memory ordering.  */                                 \
    if (model_s < model_f)                                              \
      return 0;                                                         \
    /* Ignore invalid memory orderings.  */                             \
    if (model_f =3D=3D __ATOMIC_RELEASE || model_f =3D=3D __ATOMIC_ACQ_REL)=
     \
      return 0;                                                         \

I am trying to decide I just want to add -Wno-invalid-memory-model or add t=
he
dg-warning . I am leaning towards adding the flag.=