[Bug testsuite/111377] [14 regression] c-c++-common/analyzer/compound-assignment-1.c fails after r14-3823-g50b5199cff6908 on big endian

["cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111377

--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek <jakub@gcc.gnu.org>:

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d2f53a601a23925b795ac162f7936163c3461b2c

commit r14-4143-gd2f53a601a23925b795ac162f7936163c3461b2c
Author: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue Sep 19 17:48:42 2023 +0200

    testsuite work-around compound-assignment-1.c C++ failures on various
targets [PR111377]

    On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 11:11:30PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
wrote:
    > I think the divergence is whether called_by_test_5b returns the struct
    > in registers or in memory.  If in memory (like in the x86_64 -m32 case),
we have
    >   [compound-assignment-1.c:71:21] D.3191 = called_by_test_5b (); [return
slot optimization]
    >   [compound-assignment-1.c:71:21 discrim 1] D.3191 ={v} {CLOBBER(eol)};
    >   [compound-assignment-1.c:72:1] return;
    > in the IL, while if in registers (like x86_64 -m64 case), just
    >   [compound-assignment-1.c:71:21] D.3591 = called_by_test_5b ();
    >   [compound-assignment-1.c:72:1] return;
    >
    > If you just want to avoid the differences, putting } on the same line as
the
    > call might be a usable workaround for that.

    Here is the workaround in patch form.

    2023-09-19  Jakub Jelinek  <jakub@redhat.com>

            PR testsuite/111377
            * c-c++-common/analyzer/compound-assignment-1.c (test_5b): Move
            closing } to the same line as the call to work-around differences
in
            diagnostics line.