* [Bug target/104200] [12 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/atomic-inst-cas.c (test for excess errors) fails
2022-01-24 9:28 [Bug target/104200] New: [12 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/atomic-inst-cas.c (test for excess errors) fails pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-01-24 9:28 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-01-27 22:51 ` [Bug testsuite/104200] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-01-24 9:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104200
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/104200] [12 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/atomic-inst-cas.c (test for excess errors) fails
2022-01-24 9:28 [Bug target/104200] New: [12 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/atomic-inst-cas.c (test for excess errors) fails pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-01-24 9:28 ` [Bug target/104200] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-01-27 22:51 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-01-27 23:34 ` [Bug tree-optimization/104200] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-01-27 22:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104200
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 == __ATOMIC_RELEASE || model_f == __ATOMIC_ACQ_REL) \
return 0; \
I am trying to decide I just want to add -Wno-invalid-memory-model or add the
dg-warning . I am leaning towards adding the flag.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/104200] [12 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/atomic-inst-cas.c (test for excess errors) fails
2022-01-24 9:28 [Bug target/104200] New: [12 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/atomic-inst-cas.c (test for excess errors) fails pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-01-24 9:28 ` [Bug target/104200] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-01-27 22:51 ` [Bug testsuite/104200] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-01-27 23:34 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-01-27 23:42 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-01-27 23:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104200
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component|testsuite |tree-optimization
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Wait this should not warn as __atomic_compare_exchange_n should have been
removed before the warning happens as it is happening in
pass_waccess::check_atomic_builtin now which should have been after the code
was removed ...
Let me try to reduce a testcase and all.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/104200] [12 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/atomic-inst-cas.c (test for excess errors) fails
2022-01-24 9:28 [Bug target/104200] New: [12 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/atomic-inst-cas.c (test for excess errors) fails pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2022-01-27 23:34 ` [Bug tree-optimization/104200] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-01-27 23:42 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-01-28 0:01 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-01-27 23:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104200
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |NEW
Assignee|pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Keywords| |diagnostic
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
waccess is way early where there is almost no optimizations happen.
Not going to fix this.
Simple testcase:
int test_cas_atomic_relaxed_consume_char (char* val, char* foo, char* bar) {
int model_s = 0;
int model_f = 1;
if (model_s < model_f) return 0;
if (model_f == 3 || model_f == 4) return 0;
return __atomic_compare_exchange_n (val, foo, bar, 0, model_s, model_f);
}
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/104200] [12 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/atomic-inst-cas.c (test for excess errors) fails
2022-01-24 9:28 [Bug target/104200] New: [12 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/atomic-inst-cas.c (test for excess errors) fails pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2022-01-27 23:42 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-01-28 0:01 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-16 17:38 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-01-28 0:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104200
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
See Also| |https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
| |a/show_bug.cgi?id=102177
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
As mentioned in PR 102177, maybe we should not be warning about these as they
are valid now in C++17.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/104200] [12 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/atomic-inst-cas.c (test for excess errors) fails
2022-01-24 9:28 [Bug target/104200] New: [12 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/atomic-inst-cas.c (test for excess errors) fails pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2022-01-28 0:01 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-02-16 17:38 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-06 8:32 ` [Bug tree-optimization/104200] [12/13 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-02-16 17:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104200
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Maybe waccess should do a similar thing to uninitialized warnings does now:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-February/589983.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/104200] [12/13 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/atomic-inst-cas.c (test for excess errors) fails
2022-01-24 9:28 [Bug target/104200] New: [12 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/atomic-inst-cas.c (test for excess errors) fails pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2022-02-16 17:38 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-05-06 8:32 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-07-26 13:03 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-08 12:23 ` [Bug tree-optimization/104200] [12/13/14 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-05-06 8:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104200
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|12.0 |12.2
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 12.1 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 12.2.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/104200] [12/13 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/atomic-inst-cas.c (test for excess errors) fails
2022-01-24 9:28 [Bug target/104200] New: [12 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/atomic-inst-cas.c (test for excess errors) fails pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2022-05-06 8:32 ` [Bug tree-optimization/104200] [12/13 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-07-26 13:03 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-08 12:23 ` [Bug tree-optimization/104200] [12/13/14 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-07-26 13:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104200
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority|P3 |P2
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/104200] [12/13/14 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/atomic-inst-cas.c (test for excess errors) fails
2022-01-24 9:28 [Bug target/104200] New: [12 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/atomic-inst-cas.c (test for excess errors) fails pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2022-07-26 13:03 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-05-08 12:23 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-05-08 12:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104200
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|12.3 |12.4
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 12.3 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 12.4.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread