public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug testsuite/97680] New: new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors
@ 2020-11-02 20:00 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-11-02 20:12 ` [Bug testsuite/97680] " qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org
` (17 more replies)
0 siblings, 18 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: seurer at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-11-02 20:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97680
Bug ID: 97680
Summary: new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in
r11-4578 has excess errors
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
g:d10f3e900b0377b4760a090b0f90371bcef01686, r11-4578
make -k check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="dg.exp=c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c"
FAIL: c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c -Wc++-compat (test for excess
errors)
FAIL: c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c -std=gnu++98 (test for excess
errors)
FAIL: c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c -std=gnu++14 (test for excess
errors)
FAIL: c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c -std=gnu++17 (test for excess
errors)
FAIL: c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c -std=gnu++2a (test for excess
errors)
# of unexpected failures 1
# of unexpected failures 4
# of unresolved testcases 1
# of unresolved testcases 4
commit d10f3e900b0377b4760a090b0f90371bcef01686
Author: qing zhao <qinzhao@gcc.gnu.org>
Date: Fri Oct 30 20:41:38 2020 +0100
If looks like the errors are all like this:
FAIL: c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c -std=gnu++98 (test for excess
errors)
Excess errors:
/home/seurer/gcc/git/gcc-test/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c:77:1:
sorry, unimplemented: '-fzero-call-used_regs' not supported on this target
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/97680] new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors
2020-11-02 20:00 [Bug testsuite/97680] New: new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-11-02 20:12 ` qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-11-03 7:22 ` [Bug testsuite/97680] [11 Regression] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (16 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-11-02 20:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97680
--- Comment #1 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to seurer from comment #0)
> commit d10f3e900b0377b4760a090b0f90371bcef01686
> Author: qing zhao <qinzhao@gcc.gnu.org>
> Date: Fri Oct 30 20:41:38 2020 +0100
>
> If looks like the errors are all like this:
>
> FAIL: c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c -std=gnu++98 (test for excess
> errors)
> Excess errors:
> /home/seurer/gcc/git/gcc-test/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-
> 10.c:77:1: sorry, unimplemented: '-fzero-call-used_regs' not supported on
> this target
Hi, this is an expected error on this platform since the middle-end
implementation of -fzero-call-used-regs doesn't work for it. Please mark these
testing case as expected failure on this platform, or finish the implementation
on powerpc backend
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/97680] [11 Regression] new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors
2020-11-02 20:00 [Bug testsuite/97680] New: new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-11-02 20:12 ` [Bug testsuite/97680] " qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-11-03 7:22 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-11-03 14:32 ` qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org
` (15 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-11-03 7:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97680
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Summary|new test case |[11 Regression] new test
|c-c++-common/zero-scratch-r |case
|egs-10.c in r11-4578 has |c-c++-common/zero-scratch-r
|excess errors |egs-10.c in r11-4578 has
| |excess errors
Last reconfirmed| |2020-11-03
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Err, please dg-skip the tests for ! supported targets. They also fail on
x86_64 with -m32 btw.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/97680] [11 Regression] new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors
2020-11-02 20:00 [Bug testsuite/97680] New: new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-11-02 20:12 ` [Bug testsuite/97680] " qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-11-03 7:22 ` [Bug testsuite/97680] [11 Regression] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-11-03 14:32 ` qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-11-04 13:26 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
` (14 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-11-03 14:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97680
--- Comment #3 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> Err, please dg-skip the tests for ! supported targets. They also fail on
> x86_64 with -m32 btw.
x86_64 with -m32 failure should be already fixed by Uros already.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/97680] [11 Regression] new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors
2020-11-02 20:00 [Bug testsuite/97680] New: new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2020-11-03 14:32 ` qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-11-04 13:26 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-11-07 16:43 ` iains at gcc dot gnu.org
` (13 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-11-04 13:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97680
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org <rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org <rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> Err, please dg-skip the tests for ! supported targets. They also fail on
> x86_64 with -m32 btw.
The point is that these tests are flushing out which those targets are,
since nobody knows at present. Most targets are supported naturally:
it's certainly not just an x86_64 or aarch64 thing. But some targets
have special requirements that mean they would need to define a simple
hook in order to support the option.
So if this sorry() fires, we need to decide whether to add support
or live with the option being unsupported for that target combination.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/97680] [11 Regression] new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors
2020-11-02 20:00 [Bug testsuite/97680] New: new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2020-11-04 13:26 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-11-07 16:43 ` iains at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-11-08 9:44 ` iains at gcc dot gnu.org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: iains at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-11-07 16:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97680
--- Comment #5 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I added xfail-if for powerpc-darwin (8,9, 10 and 11).
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-cvs/2020-November/336720.html
Since i don't think I will have time this cycle to implement it (there are much
more pressing demands on the time) - at least the tests will then XPASS if/when
the impl. is done. Presumably anyone else in the same situation could append
their target to the XFAIL.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/97680] [11 Regression] new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors
2020-11-02 20:00 [Bug testsuite/97680] New: new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2020-11-07 16:43 ` iains at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-11-08 9:44 ` iains at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-01-14 9:32 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: iains at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-11-08 9:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97680
--- Comment #6 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #5)
> I added xfail-if for powerpc-darwin (8,9, 10 and 11).
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-cvs/2020-November/336720.html
>
> Since i don't think I will have time this cycle to implement it (there are
> much more pressing demands on the time) - at least the tests will then XPASS
> if/when the impl. is done.
Unfortunately, that's not enough; the XFAIL only covers the run and we have to
skip the tests completely to avoid testsuite output noise (which I've done for
powerpc-darwin).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/97680] [11 Regression] new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors
2020-11-02 20:00 [Bug testsuite/97680] New: new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2020-11-08 9:44 ` iains at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-01-14 9:32 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-02-23 12:27 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-01-14 9:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97680
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
maybe do a dg-skip-if .. { target ! { positive list } }
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/97680] [11 Regression] new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors
2020-11-02 20:00 [Bug testsuite/97680] New: new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2021-01-14 9:32 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-02-23 12:27 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-02-26 12:17 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-02-23 12:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97680
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
*** Bug 97699 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/97680] [11 Regression] new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors
2020-11-02 20:00 [Bug testsuite/97680] New: new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2021-02-23 12:27 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-02-26 12:17 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-02-26 12:17 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-02-26 12:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97680
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target|powerpc64*-linux-gnu,powerp |arm
|c-apple-darwin, arm |
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Meanwhile the testcase has
/* { dg-skip-if "not implemented" { powerpc*-*-* } } */
but it will still fail on all targets but x86_64 (and now powerpc). Qinzhao,
what's the list of targets this is supported?
We could add a
/* { dg-final { dg-message "sorry, unimplemented" { target { ! { .... } } } }
*/
or so to make the sorry expected.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/97680] [11 Regression] new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors
2020-11-02 20:00 [Bug testsuite/97680] New: new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2021-02-26 12:17 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-02-26 12:17 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-02-26 16:18 ` qing.zhao at oracle dot com
` (7 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-02-26 12:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97680
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority|P3 |P1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/97680] [11 Regression] new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors
2020-11-02 20:00 [Bug testsuite/97680] New: new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2021-02-26 12:17 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-02-26 16:18 ` qing.zhao at oracle dot com
2021-03-18 14:26 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: qing.zhao at oracle dot com @ 2021-02-26 16:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97680
--- Comment #10 from Qing Zhao <qing.zhao at oracle dot com> ---
> but it will still fail on all targets but x86_64 (and now powerpc). Qinzhao,
> what's the list of targets this is supported?
I believe that the targets that currently support this feature are:
x86-64
aarch64
sparc
The original patch supported x86-64 and aarch64, later the following patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-cvs/2020-December/338342.html
<https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-cvs/2020-December/338342.html>
Support sparc
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/97680] [11 Regression] new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors
2020-11-02 20:00 [Bug testsuite/97680] New: new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2021-02-26 16:18 ` qing.zhao at oracle dot com
@ 2021-03-18 14:26 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-03-18 16:17 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-03-18 14:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97680
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Christophe Lyon <clyon@gcc.gnu.org>:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0211fbb610c19d728c68a0c6c603826059ea9af9
commit r11-7716-g0211fbb610c19d728c68a0c6c603826059ea9af9
Author: Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org>
Date: Thu Mar 18 09:58:52 2021 +0000
testsuite: Skip c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c on arm
As discussed in PR 97680, -fzero-call-used-regs is not supported on
arm.
Skip this test to avoid failure reports.
2021-03-18 Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org>
gcc/testsuite/
PR testsuite/97680
* c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c: Skip on arm
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/97680] [11 Regression] new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors
2020-11-02 20:00 [Bug testsuite/97680] New: new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2021-03-18 14:26 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-03-18 16:17 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-03-18 17:49 ` clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-03-18 16:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97680
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
So fixed?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/97680] [11 Regression] new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors
2020-11-02 20:00 [Bug testsuite/97680] New: new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2021-03-18 16:17 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-03-18 17:49 ` clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-03-31 6:58 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: clyon at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-03-18 17:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97680
--- Comment #13 from Christophe Lyon <clyon at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
For arm yes, but according to gcc-testresults, it's failing on ia64 and s390
too, at least.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/97680] [11 Regression] new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors
2020-11-02 20:00 [Bug testsuite/97680] New: new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2021-03-18 17:49 ` clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-03-31 6:58 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-03-31 7:03 ` [Bug testsuite/97680] [12 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-03-31 6:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97680
--- Comment #14 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:0989e99470c2a6797bacf6d04888bc9a46a632a8
commit r11-7922-g0989e99470c2a6797bacf6d04888bc9a46a632a8
Author: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Date: Wed Mar 31 08:55:38 2021 +0200
testsuite: Disable zero-scratch-regs-{8, 9, 10, 11}.c on all but ...
[PR97680]
Seems the target hook is only defined on
config/i386/i386.c:#undef TARGET_ZERO_CALL_USED_REGS
config/i386/i386.c:#define TARGET_ZERO_CALL_USED_REGS
ix86_zero_call_used_regs
config/sparc/sparc.c:#undef TARGET_ZERO_CALL_USED_REGS
config/sparc/sparc.c:#define TARGET_ZERO_CALL_USED_REGS
sparc_zero_call_used_regs
but apparently many of the tests actually succeed on various targets that
don't define those hooks. E.g. I haven't seen them to fail on aarch64,
on arm only the -10.c fails, on powerpc*/s390* all {8,9,10,11} fail (plus
5 is skipped on power*-aix*).
On ia64 according to testresults {6,7,8,9,10,11} fail, some with ICEs.
On mipsel according to testresults {9,10,11} fail, some with ICEs.
On nvptx at least 1-9 succeed, 10-11 don't know, don't have assert.h
around.
I've kept {5,6,7} with aix,ia64,ia64 skipped because those seems like
outliers, it works pretty much everywhere but on those.
The rest have known good targets.
2021-03-31 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
PR testsuite/97680
* c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-6.c: Skip on ia64.
* c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-7.c: Likewise.
* c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-8.c: Change from dg-skip-if of
selected unsupported triplets to all targets but selected triplets
of supported targets.
* c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-9.c: Likewise.
* c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c: Likewise.
* c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-11.c: Likewise.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/97680] [12 Regression] new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors
2020-11-02 20:00 [Bug testsuite/97680] New: new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2021-03-31 6:58 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-03-31 7:03 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-06 8:30 ` [Bug testsuite/97680] [12/13 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-08 12:21 ` [Bug testsuite/97680] [12/13/14 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-03-31 7:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97680
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority|P1 |P2
Summary|[11 Regression] new test |[12 Regression] new test
|case |case
|c-c++-common/zero-scratch-r |c-c++-common/zero-scratch-r
|egs-10.c in r11-4578 has |egs-10.c in r11-4578 has
|excess errors |excess errors
Target Milestone|11.0 |12.0
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Testsuite adjusted. Changing it into a GCC 12 regression because support for
the feature on many of the architectures is missing.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/97680] [12/13 Regression] new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors
2020-11-02 20:00 [Bug testsuite/97680] New: new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2021-03-31 7:03 ` [Bug testsuite/97680] [12 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-05-06 8:30 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-08 12:21 ` [Bug testsuite/97680] [12/13/14 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-05-06 8:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97680
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|12.0 |12.2
--- Comment #16 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] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/97680] [12/13/14 Regression] new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors
2020-11-02 20:00 [Bug testsuite/97680] New: new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
` (16 preceding siblings ...)
2022-05-06 8:30 ` [Bug testsuite/97680] [12/13 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-05-08 12:21 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-05-08 12:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97680
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|12.3 |12.4
--- Comment #18 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] 19+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-05-08 12:21 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-11-02 20:00 [Bug testsuite/97680] New: new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-11-02 20:12 ` [Bug testsuite/97680] " qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-11-03 7:22 ` [Bug testsuite/97680] [11 Regression] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-11-03 14:32 ` qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-11-04 13:26 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-11-07 16:43 ` iains at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-11-08 9:44 ` iains at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-01-14 9:32 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-02-23 12:27 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-02-26 12:17 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-02-26 12:17 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-02-26 16:18 ` qing.zhao at oracle dot com
2021-03-18 14:26 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-03-18 16:17 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-03-18 17:49 ` clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-03-31 6:58 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-03-31 7:03 ` [Bug testsuite/97680] [12 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-06 8:30 ` [Bug testsuite/97680] [12/13 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-08 12:21 ` [Bug testsuite/97680] [12/13/14 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).