From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10746 invoked by alias); 22 Mar 2011 16:59:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 10720 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Mar 2011 16:59:21 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:59:17 +0000 From: "sje at cup dot hp.com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/48209] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr47917.c execution X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: target X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: sje at cup dot hp.com X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:13:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-03/txt/msg02337.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48209 --- Comment #6 from Steve Ellcey 2011-03-22 16:59:03 UTC --- I guess we disagree on what the test should be doing. I agree that it is a valid test for showing that nothing gets broken when doing the optimization, but it is not a test that shows that the optimization is actually happening (unless I am missing something). If something were to change in GCC and we stopped inlining snprintf, this test would continue to pass and we would not know that we had a performance regression.