From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 69996 invoked by alias); 14 Oct 2016 19:25:59 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 69981 invoked by uid 89); 14 Oct 2016 19:25:59 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:1451 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 19:25:58 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E7BE85543; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 19:25:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vpn-237-192.phx2.redhat.com (vpn-237-192.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.237.192]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u9EJPtQq013959; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 15:25:56 -0400 Message-ID: <1476473155.10766.33.camel@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add "__RTL" to cc1 (v2) From: David Malcolm To: Richard Biener , Bernd Schmidt Cc: Joseph Myers , GCC Patches Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 19:25:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: References: <1475855912-44611-1-git-send-email-dmalcolm@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-10/txt/msg01195.txt.bz2 On Fri, 2016-10-14 at 11:33 +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Bernd Schmidt > wrote: > > On 10/13/2016 03:49 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > > > Does it really run a single pass only? Thus you can't do a { dg > > > -do run } > > > test > > > with __RTL? > > > > > > I think that's really not the intended use-case. To my mind this is > > for > > unit-testing: ensuring that a given rtl pass performs the expected > > transformation on an input. > > Ok, so at least for the GIMPLE FE side I thought it's useful to allow > a correctness verification with something simpler than pattern > matching > on the pass output. By means of doing runtime verification of an > expected > result (this necessarily includes running followup passes as we have > to > generate code). I don't see why this shouldn't apply to __RTL -- it > might > be more difficult to get __RTL testcases to the point where they emit > assembly of course. > > OTOH the question then still is what's the default behavior if you do > _not_ > specify a "single pass to run". As noted elsewhere, the current behavior is that it merely parses the function and ignores it - and that's a bug in the current implementation. The behavior probably should be that it runs the remainder of the RTL passes from some specified point, and generates valid assembler (so that we can have dg-do DejaGnu tests).