[Bug middle-end/46895] New: FAIL: gcc.target/i386/max-stack-align.c

[Bug middle-end/46895] New: FAIL: gcc.target/i386/max-stack-align.c

[hjl.tools at gmail dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46895

           Summary: FAIL: gcc.target/i386/max-stack-align.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


On Linux/ia32, revision 167711 gave:

export/gnu/import/git/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/max-stack-align.c: In
function 'foo':^M
/export/gnu/import/git/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/max-stack-align.c:7:8:
error: can't find a register in class 'GENERAL_REGS' while reloading 'asm'^M
/export/gnu/import/git/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/max-stack-align.c:7:8:
error: 'asm' operand has impossible constraints^M

FAIL: gcc.target/i386/max-stack-align.c (test for excess errors)

[Bug testsuite/46895] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/max-stack-align.c

[ubizjak at gmail dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46895

Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Component|middle-end                  |testsuite

--- Comment #1 from Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> 2010-12-12 09:20:43 UTC ---
This is 64bit specific test. See %rbp clobber.

Also, 8 input regs is a bit too much for 32bit targets.

[Bug testsuite/46895] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/max-stack-align.c

[ubizjak at gmail dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46895

--- Comment #2 from Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> 2010-12-12 09:30:35 UTC ---
/* { dg-do compile } */
/* { dg-options "-fomit-frame-pointer" } */

#ifdef __x86_64__
# define BP_REG "%rbp"
#else
# define BP_REG "%ebp"
#endif

void foo (void)
{
  __asm__ volatile ( "" ::: BP_REG );
}

[Bug testsuite/46895] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/max-stack-align.c

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46895

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

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

--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-12-13 17:11:52 UTC ---
Yeah, if #c2 tests what the test meant to test, then it is much preferrable
over the thing that got committed, which has lots of issues.

[Bug testsuite/46895] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/max-stack-align.c

[asharif at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46895

asharif at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

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

--- Comment #4 from asharif at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-13 17:49:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Yeah, if #c2 tests what the test meant to test, then it is much preferrable
> over the thing that got committed, which has lots of issues.

Sorry about the trunk breakage. I reverted the testcase. Yes, it was meant for
x86-64. I'll fix the testcase and repost a patch to the mailing list.

Reverted in r167756.

[Bug testsuite/46895] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/max-stack-align.c

[asharif at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46895

--- Comment #5 from asharif at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-13 18:49:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > Yeah, if #c2 tests what the test meant to test, then it is much preferrable
> > over the thing that got committed, which has lots of issues.
> 
> Sorry about the trunk breakage. I reverted the testcase. Yes, it was meant for
> x86-64. I'll fix the testcase and repost a patch to the mailing list.
> 
> Reverted in r167756.

Update:

The test doesn't do what #c3 is doing. The test is supposed to fail with this
patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revision&revision=153780 and pass
otherwise. That patch limits the alignment to MAX_SUPPORTED_STACK_ALIGNMENT. 

The test described in #c3 will still pass with that patch. 


As far as the uninitialized variables are concerned, I can set them all to 0
and it doesn't affect whether the test passes or fails.

Can you assign this bug to me?

Also, can I submit my patch with the lp64 dejaGNU filter?

Thanks!

[Bug testsuite/46895] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/max-stack-align.c

[hjl.tools at gmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46895

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.6.0
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED

--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> ---
Fixed in GCC 4.6.0 by r0-105460.