[Bug middle-end/46423] New: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr34850.C

[Bug middle-end/46423] New: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr34850.C

[hjl.tools at gmail dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46423

           Summary: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr34850.C
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.6.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: middle-end
        AssignedTo: unassigned@gcc.gnu.org
        ReportedBy: hjl.tools@gmail.com
                CC: hubicka@gcc.gnu.org


On Linux/x86-64, revision 166555 gave:

FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr34850.C  -O0  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr34850.C  -O1  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr34850.C  -O2  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr34850.C  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer  (test for excess
error
s)
FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr34850.C  -O3 -g  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr34850.C  -Os  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr34850.C  -O2 -flto  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr34850.C  -O2 -fwhopr  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr34850.C  -O0  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr34850.C  -O1  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr34850.C  -O2  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr34850.C  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer  (test for excess
error
s)
FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr34850.C  -O3 -g  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr34850.C  -Os  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr34850.C  -O2 -flto  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr34850.C  -O2 -fwhopr  (test for excess errors)

Revision 166552 is OK.

[Bug middle-end/46423] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr34850.C

[hjl.tools at gmail dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46423

H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2010.11.11 02:17:01
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> 2010-11-11 02:17:01 UTC ---
Revision 166555:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-11/msg00444.html

is the cause.

[Bug middle-end/46423] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr34850.C

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46423

Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.6.0

[Bug middle-end/46423] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr34850.C

[hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46423

Jan Hubicka <hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |rguenther at suse dot de

--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-11-11 14:12:57 UTC ---
Hmm,
the testcase seems to come and go depending on inline metrics.  It is testing
that all calls to the function marked as warning are optimized out, but I can
not make sense of it.

Richard, was purpose of this testcase to verify that it is indeed having
everything optimized out, or it is just about the infinite recursion problem?
In the second case we probably want to accept the warnings.

[Bug middle-end/46423] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr34850.C

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46423

--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-11-11 14:22:23 UTC ---
The testcase is supposed to not ICE or hang, the diagnostics indeed come
and go, so it's fine to expect them again.  See svn log which tells you
that martin removed them last time ... (they are supposed to happen)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
r164135 | jamborm | 2010-09-10 01:28:27 +0200 (Fri, 10 Sep 2010) | 9 lines

2010-09-10  Martin Jambor  <mjambor@suse.cz>

        PR tree-optimization/44972
        * ipa-prop.c (ipa_modify_call_arguments): Build MEM_REF instead of
        calling build_ref_for_offset.

        * testsuite/g++.dg/torture/pr34850.C: Remove expected warning.

so, just revert that last change.

[Bug middle-end/46423] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr34850.C

[hubicka at ucw dot cz]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46423

--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz> 2010-11-11 14:57:57 UTC ---
> --- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-11-11 14:22:23 UTC ---
> The testcase is supposed to not ICE or hang, the diagnostics indeed come
> and go, so it's fine to expect them again.  See svn log which tells you
> that martin removed them last time ... (they are supposed to happen)

Ok, the catch is that they seem to be target specific now.   Is there way to
say to ignore
warning if it appears?

[Bug middle-end/46423] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr34850.C

[ubizjak at gmail dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46423

--- Comment #5 from Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> 2010-11-11 17:47:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)

> Ok, the catch is that they seem to be target specific now.   Is there way to
> say to ignore
> warning if it appears?

dg-prune-output perhaps?

[Bug middle-end/46423] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr34850.C

[rguenther at suse dot de]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46423

--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> 2010-11-11 18:42:53 UTC ---
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010, ubizjak at gmail dot com wrote:

> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46423
> 
> --- Comment #5 from Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> 2010-11-11 17:47:47 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #4)
> 
> > Ok, the catch is that they seem to be target specific now.   Is there way to
> > say to ignore
> > warning if it appears?
> 
> dg-prune-output perhaps?

dg-options "-w"

[Bug middle-end/46423] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr34850.C

[rguenther at suse dot de]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46423

--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> 2010-11-11 18:43:39 UTC ---
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010, Richard Guenther wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Nov 2010, ubizjak at gmail dot com wrote:
> 
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46423
> > 
> > --- Comment #5 from Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> 2010-11-11 17:47:47 UTC ---
> > (In reply to comment #4)
> > 
> > > Ok, the catch is that they seem to be target specific now.   Is there way to
> > > say to ignore
> > > warning if it appears?
> > 
> > dg-prune-output perhaps?
> 
> dg-options "-w"

err, no - the testcase is supposed to test against a compiler hang
with emitting the warning

[Bug middle-end/46423] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr34850.C

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46423

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-11-11 19:56:17 UTC ---
Perhaps always_inline instead to make sure we inline whatever is necessary to
actually warn?

[Bug middle-end/46423] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr34850.C

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46423

Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED

--- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-11-15 12:39:17 UTC ---
Fixed.

[Bug middle-end/46423] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr34850.C

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46423

--- Comment #9 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-11-15 12:39:04 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 15 12:38:59 2010
New Revision: 166752

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166752
Log:
2010-11-15  Richard Guenther  <rguenther@suse.de>

    PR testsuite/46423
    * g++.dg/torture/pr34850.C: Adjust.

Modified:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/torture/pr34850.C