[Bug testsuite/97680] New: new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors

[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]

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

[Bug testsuite/97680] new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors

[qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org]

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

[Bug testsuite/97680] [11 Regression] new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

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.

[Bug testsuite/97680] [11 Regression] new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors

[qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org]

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.

[Bug testsuite/97680] [11 Regression] new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors

[rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org]

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.

[Bug testsuite/97680] [11 Regression] new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors

[iains at gcc dot gnu.org]

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.

[Bug testsuite/97680] [11 Regression] new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors

[iains at gcc dot gnu.org]

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).

[Bug testsuite/97680] [11 Regression] new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

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 } }

[Bug testsuite/97680] [11 Regression] new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

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. ***

[Bug testsuite/97680] [11 Regression] new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

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.

[Bug testsuite/97680] [11 Regression] new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

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

[Bug testsuite/97680] [11 Regression] new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors

[qing.zhao at oracle dot com]

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

[Bug testsuite/97680] [11 Regression] new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors

[cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org]

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

[Bug testsuite/97680] [11 Regression] new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

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?

[Bug testsuite/97680] [11 Regression] new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors

[clyon at gcc dot gnu.org]

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.

[Bug testsuite/97680] [11 Regression] new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors

[cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org]

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.

[Bug testsuite/97680] [12 Regression] new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

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.

[Bug testsuite/97680] [12/13 Regression] new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

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.

[Bug testsuite/97680] [12/13/14 Regression] new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

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.