[trans-mem] XFAIL known failures

[trans-mem] XFAIL known failures

[Aldy Hernandez]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 93 bytes --]

These are known failures, mostly missed optimizations.  XFAILing them.

Committed to branch.

[-- Attachment #2: curr --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 5393 bytes --]

libitm/
	* testsuite/libitm.c/reentrant.c: XFAIL.
	* testsuite/libitm.c++/static_ctor.C: XFAIL.
gcc/
	* testsuite/gcc.dg/tm/memopt-3.c: XFAIL.
	* testsuite/gcc.dg/tm/memopt-4.c: XFAIL.
	* testsuite/gcc.dg/tm/memopt-5.c: XFAIL.
	* testsuite/gcc.dg/tm/memopt-7.c: XFAIL.
	* testsuite/gcc.dg/tm/alias-1.c: XFAIL.
	* testsuite/gcc.dg/tm/alias-2.c: XFAIL.

Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tm/memopt-3.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tm/memopt-3.c	(revision 180744)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tm/memopt-3.c	(working copy)
@@ -16,5 +16,5 @@ int f()
   return lala.x[0];
 }
 
-/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "logging: lala.x\\\[i_1\\\]" 1 "tmmark" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "logging: lala.x\\\[i_1\\\]" 1 "tmmark" { xfail *-*-* }  } } */
 /* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "tmmark" } } */
Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tm/memopt-5.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tm/memopt-5.c	(revision 180744)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tm/memopt-5.c	(working copy)
@@ -19,5 +19,5 @@ int f()
   return lala.x[i];
 }
 
-/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "ITM_LU\[0-9\] \\\(&lala.x\\\[55\\\]" 1 "tmedge" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "ITM_LU\[0-9\] \\\(&lala.x\\\[55\\\]" 1 "tmedge" { xfail *-*-* } } } */
 /* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "tmedge" } } */
Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tm/memopt-7.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tm/memopt-7.c	(revision 180744)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tm/memopt-7.c	(working copy)
@@ -17,6 +17,6 @@ int f()
   return lala.x[asdf];
 }
 
-/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "tm_save.\[0-9_\]+ = lala" 1 "tmedge" } } */
-/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "lala = tm_save" 1 "tmedge" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "tm_save.\[0-9_\]+ = lala" 1 "tmedge" { xfail *-*-* } } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "lala = tm_save" 1 "tmedge" { xfail *-*-* } } } */
 /* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "tmedge" } } */
Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tm/alias-1.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tm/alias-1.c	(revision 180863)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tm/alias-1.c	(working copy)
@@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ void f(void)
 }
 
 /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "mystruct = \{ .*ESCAPED" 1 "ealias" } } */
-/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "someptr = same as mystruct" 1 "ealias" } } */
-/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "ui\..* = same as mystruct" 1 "ealias" } } */
-/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "pp\..* = same as mystruct" 1 "ealias" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "someptr = same as mystruct" 1 "ealias" { xfail *-*-* } } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "ui\..* = same as mystruct" 1 "ealias" { xfail *-*-* } } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "pp\..* = same as mystruct" 1 "ealias" { xfail *-*-* } } } */
 /* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "ealias" } } */
Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tm/memopt-4.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tm/memopt-4.c	(revision 180744)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tm/memopt-4.c	(working copy)
@@ -19,6 +19,6 @@ int f()
   return lala.x[i];
 }
 
-/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "tm_save.\[0-9_\]+ = lala.x\\\[55\\\]" 1 "tmedge" } } */
-/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "lala.x\\\[55\\\] = tm_save" 1 "tmedge" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "tm_save.\[0-9_\]+ = lala.x\\\[55\\\]" 1 "tmedge" { xfail *-*-* } } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "lala.x\\\[55\\\] = tm_save" 1 "tmedge" { xfail *-*-* } } } */
 /* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "tmedge" } } */
Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tm/alias-2.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tm/alias-2.c	(revision 180863)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tm/alias-2.c	(working copy)
@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ void foo()
   candy();
 }
 
-/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "ui\..* = same as mystruct" 1 "ealias" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "ui\..* = same as mystruct" 1 "ealias" { xfail *-*-* } } } */
 /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "mystruct.*ESCAPED" 1 "ealias" } } */
-/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "pp = same as mystruct" 1 "ealias" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "pp = same as mystruct" 1 "ealias" { xfail *-*-* } } } */
 /* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "ealias" } } */
Index: libitm/testsuite/libitm.c/reentrant.c
===================================================================
--- libitm/testsuite/libitm.c/reentrant.c	(revision 180744)
+++ libitm/testsuite/libitm.c/reentrant.c	(working copy)
@@ -1,3 +1,5 @@
+/* { dg-do run { xfail *-*-* } }
+
 /* Tests that new transactions can be started from both transaction_pure and
    transaction_unsafe code. This also requires proper handling of reentrant
    nesting in the serial_lock implementation. */
Index: libitm/testsuite/libitm.c++/static_ctor.C
===================================================================
--- libitm/testsuite/libitm.c++/static_ctor.C	(revision 180744)
+++ libitm/testsuite/libitm.c++/static_ctor.C	(working copy)
@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
-// { dg-do run }
+/* { dg-do run } */
+/* { dg-xfail-if "" { *-*-* } { "*" } { "" } } */
 /* Tests static constructors inside of transactional code.  */
 
 #include <pthread.h>

Re: [trans-mem] XFAIL known failures

[Andrew Pinski]

On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Aldy Hernandez <aldyh@redhat.com> wrote:
> These are known failures, mostly missed optimizations.  XFAILing them.

I think you should file a bug about each missed optimization and
reference the bug # in the testcase.  This is so we don't lose track
of the missed optimizations.

Thanks,
Andrew Pinski

Re: [trans-mem] XFAIL known failures

[Aldy Hernandez]

On 11/03/11 18:30, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Aldy Hernandez<aldyh@redhat.com>  wrote:
>> These are known failures, mostly missed optimizations.  XFAILing them.
>
> I think you should file a bug about each missed optimization and
> reference the bug # in the testcase.  This is so we don't lose track
> of the missed optimizations.
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew Pinski

Sure, I can do that.

What do you suggest, a bug report per failure with nothing but the 
directory/name of the test?

Do you mind if I do this after the merge (if it gets approved)?  I'm 
trying to concentrate on merge blockers.

Thanks.

Re: [trans-mem] XFAIL known failures

[Jeff Law]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 11/03/11 17:40, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> On 11/03/11 18:30, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Aldy Hernandez<aldyh@redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>> These are known failures, mostly missed optimizations.
>>> XFAILing them.
>> 
>> I think you should file a bug about each missed optimization and 
>> reference the bug # in the testcase.  This is so we don't lose
>> track of the missed optimizations.
>> 
>> Thanks, Andrew Pinski
> 
> Sure, I can do that.
> 
> What do you suggest, a bug report per failure with nothing but the 
> directory/name of the test?
I'd say a bug report for each distinct failure.  It can get awful
confusing when there's multiple bugs in a single PR...



> Do you mind if I do this after the merge (if it gets approved)?
> I'm trying to concentrate on merge blockers.
XFAIL prior to merge, file bugs after is fine.

Thanks,
jeff
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOt1yBAAoJEBRtltQi2kC7a40H/jgJToPzkqC4ukuSKRY3rW86
htsGB7BveZm+9pcuMl5mHHfdtHaLsamCEx9Jt1DNIVZApCYAreAQTg/3kTQowXVy
ATzXsGg0ymcgb89QwA9m92LKNswgHrTuVWRqbQMV/69cPC++C5RGo6dovn6RmLtm
ok7YVDQX+4XUBqK4+C0GQn6T8uIAVuopa/qoIvUHrMWyoLeqJw/3hD2wve2WdZVv
PrsVSI6l8sOJbO7e0Xa5eZRiqWs4nguO6ROXBZRCxI1uIXeaEa65kmfCFg2XrvsW
Th037xmKs/Ua2mJ0sv0TFFBj0ckjGPxrrZ1CAsZX8oBdL7+F8M90RLy4VktKYXE=
=430I
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [trans-mem] XFAIL known failures

[Aldy Hernandez]

>> What do you suggest, a bug report per failure with nothing but the
>> directory/name of the test?
> I'd say a bug report for each distinct failure.  It can get awful
> confusing when there's multiple bugs in a single PR...

Done.  PR numbers below.

There is no trans-mem or libitm component, so I had to select other.

Thanks for your patience.

51163 	nor 	P3 	unassigned@gcc.gnu.org 	NEW 	--- 	gcc.dg/tm/alias-1.c 
failure
51164 	nor 	P3 	unassigned@gcc.gnu.org 	NEW 	--- 	gcc.dg/tm/alias-2.c 
failure
51165 	nor 	P3 	unassigned@gcc.gnu.org 	NEW 	--- 	gcc.dg/tm/memopt-3.c 
failure
51166 	nor 	P3 	unassigned@gcc.gnu.org 	NEW 	--- 	gcc.dg/tm/memopt-4.c 
failure
51167 	nor 	P3 	unassigned@gcc.gnu.org 	NEW 	--- 	gcc.dg/tm/memopt-5.c 
failure
51168 	nor 	P3 	unassigned@gcc.gnu.org 	NEW 	--- 	gcc.dg/tm/memopt-7.c 
failure
51169 	nor 	P3 	unassigned@gcc.gnu.org 	NEW 	--- 	XFAIL: 
libitm.c/dropref-2.c execution test
51170 	nor 	P3 	unassigned@gcc.gnu.org 	NEW 	--- 	XFAIL: 
libitm.c/dropref.c execution test
51171 	nor 	P3 	unassigned@gcc.gnu.org 	NEW 	--- 	XFAIL: 
libitm.c/reentrant.c execution test
51172 	nor 	P3 	unassigned@gcc.gnu.org 	NEW 	--- 	XFAIL: 
libitm.c++/dropref.C execution test
51173 	nor 	P3 	unassigned@gcc.gnu.org 	NEW 	--- 	XFAIL: 
libitm.c++/static_ctor.C