public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug middle-end/97699] New: [11 regression] zero-scratch-regs tests fail on arm
@ 2020-11-03 13:41 clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-11-03 14:23 ` [Bug middle-end/97699] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 more replies)
0 siblings, 5 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: clyon at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-11-03 13:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97699
Bug ID: 97699
Summary: [11 regression] zero-scratch-regs tests fail on arm
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Some of the recently added zero-scratch-regs-* tests fail on arm.
For instance when configuring GCC
--target arm-none-linux-gnueabihf
--with-mode arm
--with-cpu cortex-a9
--with-fpu neon-fp16
I can see:
FAIL: c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c -Wc++-compat (test for excess
errors)
FAIL: c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-11.c -Wc++-compat (test for excess
errors)
FAIL: c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-9.c -Wc++-compat (test for excess
errors)
The logs say:
/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c:77:1: sorry, unimplemented:
'-fzero-call-used_regs' not supported on this target
The other tests pass.
BTW, there's a typo in the error message, it should say
fzero-call-used-regs rather than fzero-call-used_regs (that is '-' instead of
'_' before 'regs')
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/97699] [11 regression] zero-scratch-regs tests fail on arm 2020-11-03 13:41 [Bug middle-end/97699] New: [11 regression] zero-scratch-regs tests fail on arm clyon at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-11-03 14:23 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2020-11-03 14:35 ` [Bug testsuite/97699] " qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ` (3 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-11-03 14:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97699 Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Target Milestone|--- |11.0 --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> --- See also PR97680 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/97699] [11 regression] zero-scratch-regs tests fail on arm 2020-11-03 13:41 [Bug middle-end/97699] New: [11 regression] zero-scratch-regs tests fail on arm clyon at gcc dot gnu.org 2020-11-03 14:23 ` [Bug middle-end/97699] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-11-03 14:35 ` qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org 2020-11-04 13:40 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ` (2 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-11-03 14:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97699 qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org --- this might be expected behavior since the implementation should work for aarch64 and x86. other platforms either need to skip this testing or finish the implementation at backend. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/97699] [11 regression] zero-scratch-regs tests fail on arm 2020-11-03 13:41 [Bug middle-end/97699] New: [11 regression] zero-scratch-regs tests fail on arm clyon at gcc dot gnu.org 2020-11-03 14:23 ` [Bug middle-end/97699] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2020-11-03 14:35 ` [Bug testsuite/97699] " qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-11-04 13:40 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-01-14 9:34 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-02-23 12:27 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-11-04 13:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97699 Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |burnus at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #0) > BTW, there's a typo in the error message, it should say > fzero-call-used-regs rather than fzero-call-used_regs (that is '-' instead > of '_' before 'regs') That one I fixed as obvious in r11-4721-g243492e2c69741b91dbfe3bba9b772f65fc9354c Otherwise, Richard S wrote regarding the FAIL + sorry: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-November/558041.html > these are a signal to target maintainers that they need > to decide whether to add support or accept the status quo > (in which case a new effective-target will be needed). See: > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-October/557595.html: > > The new tests are likely to fail on some targets with the sorry() > message, but I think target maintainers are best placed to decide > whether (a) that's a fundamental restriction of the target and the > tests should just be skipped or (b) the target needs to implement > the new hook. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/97699] [11 regression] zero-scratch-regs tests fail on arm 2020-11-03 13:41 [Bug middle-end/97699] New: [11 regression] zero-scratch-regs tests fail on arm clyon at gcc dot gnu.org ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2020-11-04 13:40 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-01-14 9:34 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-02-23 12:27 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-01-14 9:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97699 Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Priority|P3 |P1 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/97699] [11 regression] zero-scratch-regs tests fail on arm 2020-11-03 13:41 [Bug middle-end/97699] New: [11 regression] zero-scratch-regs tests fail on arm clyon at gcc dot gnu.org ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 2021-01-14 9:34 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-02-23 12:27 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ 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=97699 Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> --- dup *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 97680 *** ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-02-23 12:27 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2020-11-03 13:41 [Bug middle-end/97699] New: [11 regression] zero-scratch-regs tests fail on arm clyon at gcc dot gnu.org 2020-11-03 14:23 ` [Bug middle-end/97699] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2020-11-03 14:35 ` [Bug testsuite/97699] " qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org 2020-11-04 13:40 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-01-14 9:34 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-02-23 12:27 ` 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).