From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 70054 invoked by alias); 27 Apr 2016 21:37:06 -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 70034 invoked by uid 89); 27 Apr 2016 21:37:06 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= 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 (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 27 Apr 2016 21:36:56 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (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 C85E2C05E17E; Wed, 27 Apr 2016 21:36:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn-113-93.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.93]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u3RLasfw029767; Wed, 27 Apr 2016 17:36:54 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Turn some compile-time tests into run-time tests To: Patrick Palka , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org References: <1457653131-32296-1-git-send-email-patrick@parcs.ath.cx> From: Jeff Law Message-ID: <75b51453-cac0-0d8f-2bfa-9a0cabca6e9b@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 21:37:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1457653131-32296-1-git-send-email-patrick@parcs.ath.cx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-04/txt/msg01732.txt.bz2 On 03/10/2016 04:38 PM, Patrick Palka wrote: > I ran the command > > git grep -l "dg-do compile" | xargs grep -l __builtin_abort | xargs grep -lw main > > to find tests marked as compile-time tests that likely ought to instead > be marked as run-time tests, by the rationale that they use > __builtin_abort and they also define main(). (I also then confirmed that they > compile, link and run cleanly on my machine.) > > After this patch, the remaining test files reported by the above command > are: > > These do not define all the functions they use: > gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ipa/devirt-41.C > gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ipa/devirt-44.C > gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ipa/devirt-45.C > gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr55672.c > > These are non-x86 tests so I can't confirm that they run cleanly: > gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr58041.c > gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr35907.c > gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/s390/dwarfregtable-1.c > gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/s390/dwarfregtable-2.c > gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/s390/dwarfregtable-3.c > > These use dg-error: > libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/forward/c_neg.cc > libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/forward/f_neg.cc > > Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, does this look OK to > commit? Does anyone have another heuristic one can use to help find > these kinds of typos? > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > > * g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-aggr2.C: Make it a run-time test. > * g++.dg/cpp0x/nullptr32.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/cpp1y/digit-sep-cxx11-neg.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/cpp1y/digit-sep.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/ext/flexary13.C: Likewise. > * gcc.dg/alias-14.c: Likewise. > * gcc.dg/ipa/PR65282.c: Likewise. > * gcc.dg/pr69644.c: Likewise. > * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr38533.c: Likewise. > * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr61385.c: Likewise. My worry with the 38533 test is that while the ASM defines "f" from the standpoint of dataflow, it does not actually emit any code to ensure "f" is actually defined. This could lead to spurious aborts due to use of an uninitialized value at runtime. Similarly for alias-14.c I'd be worried that we don't necessarily have sync_bool_compare_and_swap on all targets for 69644. flexary13.C probably won't link on a cross target unless the cross libraries are available. But that's probably OK. The rest seem OK to me. Note that I'm not convinced all these tests were designed to be execution tests, even though they use __builtin_abort and friends. Though it's a good marker of something that can/should be looked at. jeff