* [PATCH v1 2/2] PR116019: Improve tail call error message
2024-07-25 22:55 [PATCH v1 1/2] PR116080: Fix tail call dejagnu checks Andi Kleen
@ 2024-07-25 22:55 ` Andi Kleen
2024-07-26 11:33 ` Richard Biener
2024-07-25 23:08 ` [PATCH v1 1/2] PR116080: Fix tail call dejagnu checks Sam James
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Andi Kleen @ 2024-07-25 22:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-patches; +Cc: Andi Kleen
From: Andi Kleen <ak@gcc.gnu.org>
The "tail call must be the same type" message is common on some
targets with C++, or without optimization. It is generated
when gcc believes there is an access of the return value
after the call. However usually it does not actually corespond
to a type mismatch, but can be caused for other reasons.
Make it slightly more vague to be less misleading.
gcc/ChangeLog:
PR c++/116019
* tree-tailcall.cc (find_tail_calls): Change tail call
error message.
---
gcc/tree-tailcall.cc | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/gcc/tree-tailcall.cc b/gcc/tree-tailcall.cc
index a68079d4f507..1901b1a13f99 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-tailcall.cc
+++ b/gcc/tree-tailcall.cc
@@ -632,7 +632,7 @@ find_tail_calls (basic_block bb, struct tailcall **ret, bool only_musttail,
&& may_be_aliased (result_decl)
&& ref_maybe_used_by_stmt_p (call, result_decl, false))
{
- maybe_error_musttail (call, _("tail call must be same type"));
+ maybe_error_musttail (call, _("return value used after call"));
return;
}
--
2.45.2
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] PR116019: Improve tail call error message
2024-07-25 22:55 ` [PATCH v1 2/2] PR116019: Improve tail call error message Andi Kleen
@ 2024-07-26 11:33 ` Richard Biener
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Richard Biener @ 2024-07-26 11:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andi Kleen; +Cc: gcc-patches, Andi Kleen
On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 12:55 AM Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> From: Andi Kleen <ak@gcc.gnu.org>
>
> The "tail call must be the same type" message is common on some
> targets with C++, or without optimization. It is generated
> when gcc believes there is an access of the return value
> after the call. However usually it does not actually corespond
> to a type mismatch, but can be caused for other reasons.
>
> Make it slightly more vague to be less misleading.
OK.
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> PR c++/116019
> * tree-tailcall.cc (find_tail_calls): Change tail call
> error message.
> ---
> gcc/tree-tailcall.cc | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/tree-tailcall.cc b/gcc/tree-tailcall.cc
> index a68079d4f507..1901b1a13f99 100644
> --- a/gcc/tree-tailcall.cc
> +++ b/gcc/tree-tailcall.cc
> @@ -632,7 +632,7 @@ find_tail_calls (basic_block bb, struct tailcall **ret, bool only_musttail,
> && may_be_aliased (result_decl)
> && ref_maybe_used_by_stmt_p (call, result_decl, false))
> {
> - maybe_error_musttail (call, _("tail call must be same type"));
> + maybe_error_musttail (call, _("return value used after call"));
> return;
> }
>
> --
> 2.45.2
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] PR116080: Fix tail call dejagnu checks
2024-07-25 22:55 [PATCH v1 1/2] PR116080: Fix tail call dejagnu checks Andi Kleen
2024-07-25 22:55 ` [PATCH v1 2/2] PR116019: Improve tail call error message Andi Kleen
@ 2024-07-25 23:08 ` Sam James
2024-07-25 23:14 ` Andrew Pinski
2024-07-26 11:34 ` Richard Biener
2024-07-29 10:22 ` Thomas Schwinge
3 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Sam James @ 2024-07-25 23:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andi Kleen; +Cc: gcc-patches, Andi Kleen
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4128 bytes --]
Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com> writes:
> From: Andi Kleen <ak@gcc.gnu.org>
>
> - Run the target_effective tail_call checks without optimization to
> match the actual test cases.
> - Add an extra check for external tail calls to handle targets like
> powerpc that cannot tail call between different object files.
> This one will also cover templates.
Two trivial comments below.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> PR testsuite/116080
> * g++.dg/musttail10.C: Use external tail call target check.
> * g++.dg/musttail6.C: Dito.
s/Dito/Ditto/
> * lib/target-supports.exp: Add external_tail_call. Disable
> optimization for tail call checks.
> ---
> gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/musttail10.C | 2 +-
> gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/musttail6.C | 2 +-
> gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp | 14 +++++++++++---
> 3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/musttail10.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/musttail10.C
> index ff7fcc7d8755..bd75affa2220 100644
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/musttail10.C
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/musttail10.C
> @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ double g() { [[gnu::musttail]] return f<int>(); } /* { dg-error "cannot tail-cal
>
> template <class T>
> __attribute__((noinline, noclone, noipa))
> -T g1() { [[gnu::musttail]] return f<T>(); } /* { dg-error "target is not able" "" { target powerpc*-*-* } } */
> +T g1() { [[gnu::musttail]] return f<T>(); } /* { dg-error "target is not able" "" { target { external_tail_call } } } */
>
> template <class T>
> __attribute__((noinline, noclone, noipa))
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/musttail6.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/musttail6.C
> index 5c6f69407ddb..81f6d9f3ca77 100644
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/musttail6.C
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/musttail6.C
> @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
> /* { dg-do compile { target { struct_tail_call } } } */
> +/* { dg-require-effective-target external_tail_call } */
> /* A lot of architectures will not build this due to PR115606 and PR115607 */
> -/* { dg-skip-if "powerpc does not support sibcall to templates" { powerpc*-*-* } } */
> /* { dg-options "-std=gnu++11" } */
> /* { dg-additional-options "-fdelayed-branch" { target sparc*-*-* } } */
>
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
> index d368251ef9a4..0a3946e82d4b 100644
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
> @@ -12741,7 +12741,15 @@ proc check_effective_target_tail_call { } {
> return [check_no_messages_and_pattern tail_call ",SIBCALL" rtl-expand {
> __attribute__((__noipa__)) void foo (void) { }
> __attribute__((__noipa__)) void bar (void) { foo(); }
> - } {-O2 -fdump-rtl-expand-all}] ;# The "SIBCALL" note requires a detailed dump.
> + } {-fdump-rtl-expand-all}] ;# The "SIBCALL" note requires a detailed dump.
> +}
> +
> +# Return 1 if the target can perform tail-calls for externals
> +proc check_effective_target_external_tail_call { } {
> + return [check_no_messages_and_pattern tail_call ",SIBCALL" rtl-expand {
> + extern __attribute__((__noipa__)) void foo (void);
> + __attribute__((__noipa__)) void bar (void) { foo(); }
There's far more instances of noipa in the testsuite than __noipa__.
> + } {-fdump-rtl-expand-all}] ;# The "SIBCALL" note requires a detailed dump.
> }
>
> # Return 1 if the target can perform tail-call optimizations for structures
> @@ -12751,9 +12759,9 @@ proc check_effective_target_struct_tail_call { } {
> return [check_no_messages_and_pattern tail_call ",SIBCALL" rtl-expand {
> // C++
> struct foo { int a, b; };
> - __attribute__((__noipa__)) struct foo foo (void) { return {}; }
> + extern __attribute__((__noipa__)) struct foo foo (void);
> __attribute__((__noipa__)) struct foo bar (void) { return foo(); }
> - } {-O2 -fdump-rtl-expand-all}] ;# The "SIBCALL" note requires a detailed dump.
> + } {-fdump-rtl-expand-all}] ;# The "SIBCALL" note requires a detailed dump.
> }
>
> # Return 1 if the target's calling sequence or its ABI
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 377 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] PR116080: Fix tail call dejagnu checks
2024-07-25 23:08 ` [PATCH v1 1/2] PR116080: Fix tail call dejagnu checks Sam James
@ 2024-07-25 23:14 ` Andrew Pinski
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Pinski @ 2024-07-25 23:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sam James; +Cc: Andi Kleen, gcc-patches, Andi Kleen
On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 4:09 PM Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com> writes:
>
> > From: Andi Kleen <ak@gcc.gnu.org>
> >
> > - Run the target_effective tail_call checks without optimization to
> > match the actual test cases.
> > - Add an extra check for external tail calls to handle targets like
> > powerpc that cannot tail call between different object files.
> > This one will also cover templates.
>
> Two trivial comments below.
>
> >
> > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> >
> > PR testsuite/116080
> > * g++.dg/musttail10.C: Use external tail call target check.
> > * g++.dg/musttail6.C: Dito.
>
> s/Dito/Ditto/
One extra nit, It is much (~5x) more common to use "Likewise" rather
than Ditto in GCC's changelogs.
[apinski@xeond2 gcc]$ git grep Ditto *{,/}ChangeLog*|wc -l
41565
[apinski@xeond2 gcc]$ git grep Likewise *{,/}ChangeLog*|wc -l
196587
Thanks,
Andrew
>
> > * lib/target-supports.exp: Add external_tail_call. Disable
> > optimization for tail call checks.
> > ---
> > gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/musttail10.C | 2 +-
> > gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/musttail6.C | 2 +-
> > gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp | 14 +++++++++++---
> > 3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/musttail10.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/musttail10.C
> > index ff7fcc7d8755..bd75affa2220 100644
> > --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/musttail10.C
> > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/musttail10.C
> > @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ double g() { [[gnu::musttail]] return f<int>(); } /* { dg-error "cannot tail-cal
> >
> > template <class T>
> > __attribute__((noinline, noclone, noipa))
> > -T g1() { [[gnu::musttail]] return f<T>(); } /* { dg-error "target is not able" "" { target powerpc*-*-* } } */
> > +T g1() { [[gnu::musttail]] return f<T>(); } /* { dg-error "target is not able" "" { target { external_tail_call } } } */
> >
> > template <class T>
> > __attribute__((noinline, noclone, noipa))
> > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/musttail6.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/musttail6.C
> > index 5c6f69407ddb..81f6d9f3ca77 100644
> > --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/musttail6.C
> > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/musttail6.C
> > @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
> > /* { dg-do compile { target { struct_tail_call } } } */
> > +/* { dg-require-effective-target external_tail_call } */
> > /* A lot of architectures will not build this due to PR115606 and PR115607 */
> > -/* { dg-skip-if "powerpc does not support sibcall to templates" { powerpc*-*-* } } */
> > /* { dg-options "-std=gnu++11" } */
> > /* { dg-additional-options "-fdelayed-branch" { target sparc*-*-* } } */
> >
> > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
> > index d368251ef9a4..0a3946e82d4b 100644
> > --- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
> > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
> > @@ -12741,7 +12741,15 @@ proc check_effective_target_tail_call { } {
> > return [check_no_messages_and_pattern tail_call ",SIBCALL" rtl-expand {
> > __attribute__((__noipa__)) void foo (void) { }
> > __attribute__((__noipa__)) void bar (void) { foo(); }
> > - } {-O2 -fdump-rtl-expand-all}] ;# The "SIBCALL" note requires a detailed dump.
> > + } {-fdump-rtl-expand-all}] ;# The "SIBCALL" note requires a detailed dump.
> > +}
> > +
> > +# Return 1 if the target can perform tail-calls for externals
> > +proc check_effective_target_external_tail_call { } {
> > + return [check_no_messages_and_pattern tail_call ",SIBCALL" rtl-expand {
> > + extern __attribute__((__noipa__)) void foo (void);
> > + __attribute__((__noipa__)) void bar (void) { foo(); }
>
> There's far more instances of noipa in the testsuite than __noipa__.
>
> > + } {-fdump-rtl-expand-all}] ;# The "SIBCALL" note requires a detailed dump.
> > }
> >
> > # Return 1 if the target can perform tail-call optimizations for structures
> > @@ -12751,9 +12759,9 @@ proc check_effective_target_struct_tail_call { } {
> > return [check_no_messages_and_pattern tail_call ",SIBCALL" rtl-expand {
> > // C++
> > struct foo { int a, b; };
> > - __attribute__((__noipa__)) struct foo foo (void) { return {}; }
> > + extern __attribute__((__noipa__)) struct foo foo (void);
> > __attribute__((__noipa__)) struct foo bar (void) { return foo(); }
> > - } {-O2 -fdump-rtl-expand-all}] ;# The "SIBCALL" note requires a detailed dump.
> > + } {-fdump-rtl-expand-all}] ;# The "SIBCALL" note requires a detailed dump.
> > }
> >
> > # Return 1 if the target's calling sequence or its ABI
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] PR116080: Fix tail call dejagnu checks
2024-07-25 22:55 [PATCH v1 1/2] PR116080: Fix tail call dejagnu checks Andi Kleen
2024-07-25 22:55 ` [PATCH v1 2/2] PR116019: Improve tail call error message Andi Kleen
2024-07-25 23:08 ` [PATCH v1 1/2] PR116080: Fix tail call dejagnu checks Sam James
@ 2024-07-26 11:34 ` Richard Biener
2024-07-29 10:22 ` Thomas Schwinge
3 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Richard Biener @ 2024-07-26 11:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andi Kleen; +Cc: gcc-patches, Andi Kleen
On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 12:55 AM Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> From: Andi Kleen <ak@gcc.gnu.org>
>
> - Run the target_effective tail_call checks without optimization to
> match the actual test cases.
> - Add an extra check for external tail calls to handle targets like
> powerpc that cannot tail call between different object files.
> This one will also cover templates.
OK.
Thanks,
Richard.
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> PR testsuite/116080
> * g++.dg/musttail10.C: Use external tail call target check.
> * g++.dg/musttail6.C: Dito.
> * lib/target-supports.exp: Add external_tail_call. Disable
> optimization for tail call checks.
> ---
> gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/musttail10.C | 2 +-
> gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/musttail6.C | 2 +-
> gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp | 14 +++++++++++---
> 3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/musttail10.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/musttail10.C
> index ff7fcc7d8755..bd75affa2220 100644
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/musttail10.C
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/musttail10.C
> @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ double g() { [[gnu::musttail]] return f<int>(); } /* { dg-error "cannot tail-cal
>
> template <class T>
> __attribute__((noinline, noclone, noipa))
> -T g1() { [[gnu::musttail]] return f<T>(); } /* { dg-error "target is not able" "" { target powerpc*-*-* } } */
> +T g1() { [[gnu::musttail]] return f<T>(); } /* { dg-error "target is not able" "" { target { external_tail_call } } } */
>
> template <class T>
> __attribute__((noinline, noclone, noipa))
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/musttail6.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/musttail6.C
> index 5c6f69407ddb..81f6d9f3ca77 100644
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/musttail6.C
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/musttail6.C
> @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
> /* { dg-do compile { target { struct_tail_call } } } */
> +/* { dg-require-effective-target external_tail_call } */
> /* A lot of architectures will not build this due to PR115606 and PR115607 */
> -/* { dg-skip-if "powerpc does not support sibcall to templates" { powerpc*-*-* } } */
> /* { dg-options "-std=gnu++11" } */
> /* { dg-additional-options "-fdelayed-branch" { target sparc*-*-* } } */
>
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
> index d368251ef9a4..0a3946e82d4b 100644
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
> @@ -12741,7 +12741,15 @@ proc check_effective_target_tail_call { } {
> return [check_no_messages_and_pattern tail_call ",SIBCALL" rtl-expand {
> __attribute__((__noipa__)) void foo (void) { }
> __attribute__((__noipa__)) void bar (void) { foo(); }
> - } {-O2 -fdump-rtl-expand-all}] ;# The "SIBCALL" note requires a detailed dump.
> + } {-fdump-rtl-expand-all}] ;# The "SIBCALL" note requires a detailed dump.
> +}
> +
> +# Return 1 if the target can perform tail-calls for externals
> +proc check_effective_target_external_tail_call { } {
> + return [check_no_messages_and_pattern tail_call ",SIBCALL" rtl-expand {
> + extern __attribute__((__noipa__)) void foo (void);
> + __attribute__((__noipa__)) void bar (void) { foo(); }
> + } {-fdump-rtl-expand-all}] ;# The "SIBCALL" note requires a detailed dump.
> }
>
> # Return 1 if the target can perform tail-call optimizations for structures
> @@ -12751,9 +12759,9 @@ proc check_effective_target_struct_tail_call { } {
> return [check_no_messages_and_pattern tail_call ",SIBCALL" rtl-expand {
> // C++
> struct foo { int a, b; };
> - __attribute__((__noipa__)) struct foo foo (void) { return {}; }
> + extern __attribute__((__noipa__)) struct foo foo (void);
> __attribute__((__noipa__)) struct foo bar (void) { return foo(); }
> - } {-O2 -fdump-rtl-expand-all}] ;# The "SIBCALL" note requires a detailed dump.
> + } {-fdump-rtl-expand-all}] ;# The "SIBCALL" note requires a detailed dump.
> }
>
> # Return 1 if the target's calling sequence or its ABI
> --
> 2.45.2
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] PR116080: Fix tail call dejagnu checks
2024-07-25 22:55 [PATCH v1 1/2] PR116080: Fix tail call dejagnu checks Andi Kleen
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2024-07-26 11:34 ` Richard Biener
@ 2024-07-29 10:22 ` Thomas Schwinge
2024-07-29 16:03 ` Andi Kleen
3 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Schwinge @ 2024-07-29 10:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andi Kleen; +Cc: gcc-patches, Andi Kleen
Hi Andi!
I'm lacking all possible context here, but I noticed:
On 2024-07-25T15:55:01-0700, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> - Run the target_effective tail_call checks without optimization to
> match the actual test cases.
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
> @@ -12741,7 +12741,15 @@ proc check_effective_target_tail_call { } {
> return [check_no_messages_and_pattern tail_call ",SIBCALL" rtl-expand {
> __attribute__((__noipa__)) void foo (void) { }
> __attribute__((__noipa__)) void bar (void) { foo(); }
> - } {-O2 -fdump-rtl-expand-all}] ;# The "SIBCALL" note requires a detailed dump.
> + } {-fdump-rtl-expand-all}] ;# The "SIBCALL" note requires a detailed dump.
> +}
> +proc check_effective_target_external_tail_call { } {
> + [...]
> + } {-fdump-rtl-expand-all}] ;# The "SIBCALL" note requires a detailed dump.
> }
> @@ -12751,9 +12759,9 @@ proc check_effective_target_struct_tail_call { } {
> [...]
> - } {-O2 -fdump-rtl-expand-all}] ;# The "SIBCALL" note requires a detailed dump.
> + } {-fdump-rtl-expand-all}] ;# The "SIBCALL" note requires a detailed dump.
> }
..., that means that a number of the new test cases are UNSUPPORTED, for
example, x86_64 GNU/Linux:
+UNSUPPORTED: c-c++-common/musttail1.c -Wc++-compat
+UNSUPPORTED: c-c++-common/musttail12.c -Wc++-compat
+PASS: c-c++-common/musttail13.c -Wc++-compat (test for errors, line 4)
+PASS: c-c++-common/musttail13.c -Wc++-compat (test for excess errors)
+UNSUPPORTED: c-c++-common/musttail2.c -Wc++-compat
+UNSUPPORTED: c-c++-common/musttail3.c -Wc++-compat
+UNSUPPORTED: c-c++-common/musttail4.c -Wc++-compat
+PASS: c-c++-common/musttail5.c -Wc++-compat (test for errors, line 17)
+PASS: c-c++-common/musttail5.c -Wc++-compat (test for warnings, line 10)
+PASS: c-c++-common/musttail5.c -Wc++-compat (test for warnings, line 11)
+PASS: c-c++-common/musttail5.c -Wc++-compat (test for warnings, line 12)
+PASS: c-c++-common/musttail5.c -Wc++-compat (test for warnings, line 24)
+PASS: c-c++-common/musttail5.c -Wc++-compat (test for warnings, line 25)
+PASS: c-c++-common/musttail5.c -Wc++-compat (test for warnings, line 26)
+PASS: c-c++-common/musttail5.c -Wc++-compat (test for warnings, line 5)
+PASS: c-c++-common/musttail5.c -Wc++-compat (test for warnings, line 6)
+PASS: c-c++-common/musttail5.c -Wc++-compat (test for excess errors)
+UNSUPPORTED: c-c++-common/musttail7.c -Wc++-compat
+UNSUPPORTED: c-c++-common/musttail8.c -Wc++-compat
(Similarly for their C++ testing.)
+UNSUPPORTED: g++.dg/musttail10.C
+UNSUPPORTED: g++.dg/musttail11.C
+UNSUPPORTED: g++.dg/musttail6.C
+UNSUPPORTED: g++.dg/musttail9.C
..., and even a few existing test cases "regress" from PASS to
UNSUPPORTED:
[-PASS:-]{+UNSUPPORTED:+} gcc.dg/plugin/must-tail-call-1.c -fplugin=./must_tail_call_plugin.so[-(test for excess errors)-]
[-PASS:-]{+UNSUPPORTED:+} gcc.dg/plugin/must-tail-call-2.c -fplugin=./must_tail_call_plugin.so[-(test for errors, line 18)-]
[-PASS: gcc.dg/plugin/must-tail-call-2.c -fplugin=./must_tail_call_plugin.so (test for errors, line 33)-]
[-PASS: gcc.dg/plugin/must-tail-call-2.c -fplugin=./must_tail_call_plugin.so (test for errors, line 40)-]
[-PASS: gcc.dg/plugin/must-tail-call-2.c -fplugin=./must_tail_call_plugin.so (test for errors, line 49)-]
[-PASS: gcc.dg/plugin/must-tail-call-2.c -fplugin=./must_tail_call_plugin.so (test for errors, line 58)-]
[-PASS: gcc.dg/plugin/must-tail-call-2.c -fplugin=./must_tail_call_plugin.so (test for excess errors)-]
Similarly for ppc64le GNU/Linux.
Is that intentional?
Grüße
Thomas
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] PR116080: Fix tail call dejagnu checks
2024-07-29 10:22 ` Thomas Schwinge
@ 2024-07-29 16:03 ` Andi Kleen
2024-07-29 17:14 ` Andi Kleen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Andi Kleen @ 2024-07-29 16:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Schwinge; +Cc: gcc-patches, Andi Kleen
> ..., that means that a number of the new test cases are UNSUPPORTED, for
> example, x86_64 GNU/Linux:
>
> +UNSUPPORTED: c-c++-common/musttail1.c -Wc++-compat
> +UNSUPPORTED: c-c++-common/musttail12.c -Wc++-compat
> +PASS: c-c++-common/musttail13.c -Wc++-compat (test for errors, line 4)
> +PASS: c-c++-common/musttail13.c -Wc++-compat (test for excess errors)
> +UNSUPPORTED: c-c++-common/musttail2.c -Wc++-compat
> +UNSUPPORTED: c-c++-common/musttail3.c -Wc++-compat
> +UNSUPPORTED: c-c++-common/musttail4.c -Wc++-compat
> +PASS: c-c++-common/musttail5.c -Wc++-compat (test for errors, line 17)
> +PASS: c-c++-common/musttail5.c -Wc++-compat (test for warnings, line 10)
> +PASS: c-c++-common/musttail5.c -Wc++-compat (test for warnings, line 11)
> +PASS: c-c++-common/musttail5.c -Wc++-compat (test for warnings, line 12)
> +PASS: c-c++-common/musttail5.c -Wc++-compat (test for warnings, line 24)
> +PASS: c-c++-common/musttail5.c -Wc++-compat (test for warnings, line 25)
> +PASS: c-c++-common/musttail5.c -Wc++-compat (test for warnings, line 26)
> +PASS: c-c++-common/musttail5.c -Wc++-compat (test for warnings, line 5)
> +PASS: c-c++-common/musttail5.c -Wc++-compat (test for warnings, line 6)
> +PASS: c-c++-common/musttail5.c -Wc++-compat (test for excess errors)
> +UNSUPPORTED: c-c++-common/musttail7.c -Wc++-compat
> +UNSUPPORTED: c-c++-common/musttail8.c -Wc++-compat
>
> (Similarly for their C++ testing.)
>
> +UNSUPPORTED: g++.dg/musttail10.C
> +UNSUPPORTED: g++.dg/musttail11.C
> +UNSUPPORTED: g++.dg/musttail6.C
> +UNSUPPORTED: g++.dg/musttail9.C
>
> ..., and even a few existing test cases "regress" from PASS to
> UNSUPPORTED:
>
> [-PASS:-]{+UNSUPPORTED:+} gcc.dg/plugin/must-tail-call-1.c -fplugin=./must_tail_call_plugin.so[-(test for excess errors)-]
> [-PASS:-]{+UNSUPPORTED:+} gcc.dg/plugin/must-tail-call-2.c -fplugin=./must_tail_call_plugin.so[-(test for errors, line 18)-]
> [-PASS: gcc.dg/plugin/must-tail-call-2.c -fplugin=./must_tail_call_plugin.so (test for errors, line 33)-]
> [-PASS: gcc.dg/plugin/must-tail-call-2.c -fplugin=./must_tail_call_plugin.so (test for errors, line 40)-]
> [-PASS: gcc.dg/plugin/must-tail-call-2.c -fplugin=./must_tail_call_plugin.so (test for errors, line 49)-]
> [-PASS: gcc.dg/plugin/must-tail-call-2.c -fplugin=./must_tail_call_plugin.so (test for errors, line 58)-]
> [-PASS: gcc.dg/plugin/must-tail-call-2.c -fplugin=./must_tail_call_plugin.so (test for excess errors)-]
>
> Similarly for ppc64le GNU/Linux.
>
> Is that intentional?
Thanks. I will take a look. At least on x86_64-linux everything should
be supported. On powerpc and ARM I expect some unsupported.
But the previous test cases shouldn't have changed. Maybe we need
more tail_call dejagnu tests that also enable -O2.
The whole area is unfortunately somewhat of a mine field because of
lots of varying restrictions on tail calls, both with frontends
and targets.
-Andi
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] PR116080: Fix tail call dejagnu checks
2024-07-29 16:03 ` Andi Kleen
@ 2024-07-29 17:14 ` Andi Kleen
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Andi Kleen @ 2024-07-29 17:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andi Kleen; +Cc: Thomas Schwinge, gcc-patches, Andi Kleen
I'm going to revert the patch for now. There are two problems:
- The new tests don't have a unique name so the caching confuses
the results.
- To test with -O2 we need explicit musttail checks because tail call doesn't
run with -O0 w/o musttail.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread