Re: [PATCH] testsuite work-around compound-assignment-1.c C++ failures on various targets [PR111377]

[David Malcolm <dmalcolm@redhat.com>]

On Tue, 2023-09-12 at 09:02 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 11:11:30PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-
> patches wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 07:27:57PM +0200, Benjamin Priour via Gcc-
> > patches wrote:
> > > Thanks for the report,
> > > 
> > > After investigation it seems the location of the new dejagnu
> > > directive for
> > > C++ differs depending on the configuration.
> > > The expected warning is still emitted, but its location differ
> > > slightly.
> > > I expect it to be not an issue per se of the analyzer, but a
> > > divergence in
> > > the FE between the two configurations.
> > 
> > I think the divergence is whether called_by_test_5b returns the
> > struct
> > in registers or in memory.  If in memory (like in the x86_64 -m32
> > case), we have
> >   [compound-assignment-1.c:71:21] D.3191 = called_by_test_5b ();
> > [return slot optimization]
> >   [compound-assignment-1.c:71:21 discrim 1] D.3191 ={v}
> > {CLOBBER(eol)};
> >   [compound-assignment-1.c:72:1] return;
> > in the IL, while if in registers (like x86_64 -m64 case), just
> >   [compound-assignment-1.c:71:21] D.3591 = called_by_test_5b ();
> >   [compound-assignment-1.c:72:1] return;
> > 
> > If you just want to avoid the differences, putting } on the same
> > line as the
> > call might be a usable workaround for that.
> 
> Here is the workaround in patch form.  Tested on x86_64-linux -m32/-
> m64, ok
> for trunk?

Yes, thanks!

Dave

> 
> 2023-09-12  Jakub Jelinek  <jakub@redhat.com>
> 
>         PR testsuite/111377
>         * c-c++-common/analyzer/compound-assignment-1.c (test_5b):
> Move
>         closing } to the same line as the call to work-around
> differences in
>         diagnostics line.
> 
> --- gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/analyzer/compound-assignment-
> 1.c.jj      2023-09-11 11:05:47.523727789 +0200
> +++ gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/analyzer/compound-assignment-1.c 2023-
> 09-12 08:58:52.854231161 +0200
> @@ -68,5 +68,8 @@ called_by_test_5b (void)
>  
>  void test_5b (void)
>  {
> -  called_by_test_5b ();
> -} /* { dg-warning "leak of '<anonymous>.ptr_wrapper::ptr'" "" {
> target c++ } } */
> +  called_by_test_5b (); }
> +/* { dg-warning "leak of '<anonymous>.ptr_wrapper::ptr'" "" { target
> c++ } .-1 } */
> +/* The closing } above is intentionally on the same line as the
> call, because
> +   otherwise the exact line of the diagnostics depends on whether
> the
> +   called_by_test_5b () call satisfies aggregate_value_p or not.  */
> 
> 
>         Jakub
>