[PATCH] g++.dg/init/vbase1.C and g++.dg/cpp/ucn-1.C

[PATCH] g++.dg/init/vbase1.C and g++.dg/cpp/ucn-1.C

[David Edelsohn]

No RISC architecture can store directly to MEM, so the expected RTL in
g++.dg/init/vbase1.C is wrong.  I am adding XFAIL for PowerPC.  This
probably should be disabled for ARM and other RISC architectures.

Dollar sign is not a valid identifier on AIX, so g++.dg/cpp/ucn-1.C
will produce an additional error on AIX.

* g++.dg/init/vbase1.C: XFAIL powerpc*-*-*.
* g++.dg/cpp/ucn-1.C: Expect error for dollar sign identifier on AIX.

Thanks, David

Index: init/vbase1.C
===================================================================
--- init/vbase1.C       (revision 230366)
+++ init/vbase1.C       (working copy)
@@ -42,4 +42,4 @@
 // Verify that the SubB() mem-initializer is storing 0 directly into
 // this->D.whatever rather than into a stack temp that is then copied into the
 // base field.
-// { dg-final { scan-rtl-dump "set
\[^\n\]*\n\[^\n\]*this\[^\n\]*\n\[^\n\]*const_int 0" "expand" } }
+// { dg-final { scan-rtl-dump "set
\[^\n\]*\n\[^\n\]*this\[^\n\]*\n\[^\n\]*const_int 0" "expand" { xfail
{ powerpc*-*-* } } } }
Index: cpp/ucn-1.C
===================================================================
--- cpp/ucn-1.C (revision 230366)
+++ cpp/ucn-1.C (working copy)
@@ -7,8 +7,9 @@
   "\u0041";                    // 'A' UCN is OK in string literal
   '\u0041';                    // also OK in character literal

-  int c\u0041c;                      // { dg-error "not valid in an
identifier" }
-  int c\u0024c;                      // $ is OK; not part of basic
source char set
+  int c\u0041c;                // { dg-error "not valid in an identifier" }
+               // $ is OK on most targets; not part of basic source char set
+  int c\u0024c;        // { dg-error "not valid in an identifier" {
target { powerpc-ibm-aix* } } }

   U"\uD800";             // { dg-error "not a valid universal character" }
 }

Re: [PATCH] g++.dg/init/vbase1.C and g++.dg/cpp/ucn-1.C

[Mike Stump]

On Nov 13, 2015, at 4:33 PM, David Edelsohn <dje.gcc@gmail.com> wrote:
> No RISC architecture can store directly to MEM, so the expected RTL in
> g++.dg/init/vbase1.C is wrong.  I am adding XFAIL for PowerPC.

So, completely non-portable test cases aren’t particularly nice.  vbase1.C fails for me as well, and it is a new failure.

So, I’d recommend we ask Jason on which platform the test works, and limit it to the platform.  x86_64 would be my guess.

Re: [PATCH] g++.dg/init/vbase1.C and g++.dg/cpp/ucn-1.C

[Andreas Schwab]

David Edelsohn <dje.gcc@gmail.com> writes:

> +  int c\u0024c;        // { dg-error "not valid in an identifier" {
> target { powerpc-ibm-aix* } } }

FAIL: g++.dg/cpp/ucn-1.C  -std=gnu++11  target { powerpc-ibm-aix* }  (test for errors, line 12)

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

Re: [PATCH] g++.dg/init/vbase1.C and g++.dg/cpp/ucn-1.C

[David Edelsohn]

On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 5:16 AM, Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> David Edelsohn <dje.gcc@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> +  int c\u0024c;        // { dg-error "not valid in an identifier" {
>> target { powerpc-ibm-aix* } } }
>
> FAIL: g++.dg/cpp/ucn-1.C  -std=gnu++11  target { powerpc-ibm-aix* }  (test for errors, line 12)

Argh.  So why isn't it limited to the specified target as the
documentation implies?

Thanks, David

Re: [PATCH] g++.dg/init/vbase1.C and g++.dg/cpp/ucn-1.C

[Jakub Jelinek]

On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 08:09:44AM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 5:16 AM, Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> > David Edelsohn <dje.gcc@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> +  int c\u0024c;        // { dg-error "not valid in an identifier" {
> >> target { powerpc-ibm-aix* } } }
> >
> > FAIL: g++.dg/cpp/ucn-1.C  -std=gnu++11  target { powerpc-ibm-aix* }  (test for errors, line 12)
> 
> Argh.  So why isn't it limited to the specified target as the
> documentation implies?

Because there needs to be "" or some other string in between the regexp
and { target ... }.

	Jakub

Re: [PATCH] g++.dg/init/vbase1.C and g++.dg/cpp/ucn-1.C

[David Edelsohn]

On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 08:09:44AM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 5:16 AM, Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
>> > David Edelsohn <dje.gcc@gmail.com> writes:
>> >
>> >> +  int c\u0024c;        // { dg-error "not valid in an identifier" {
>> >> target { powerpc-ibm-aix* } } }
>> >
>> > FAIL: g++.dg/cpp/ucn-1.C  -std=gnu++11  target { powerpc-ibm-aix* }  (test for errors, line 12)
>>
>> Argh.  So why isn't it limited to the specified target as the
>> documentation implies?
>
> Because there needs to be "" or some other string in between the regexp
> and { target ... }.

Fixed.  Sorry.

Thanks, David

Re: [PATCH] g++.dg/init/vbase1.C and g++.dg/cpp/ucn-1.C

[Andreas Schwab]

David Edelsohn <dje.gcc@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 5:16 AM, Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
>> David Edelsohn <dje.gcc@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> +  int c\u0024c;        // { dg-error "not valid in an identifier" {
>>> target { powerpc-ibm-aix* } } }
>>
>> FAIL: g++.dg/cpp/ucn-1.C  -std=gnu++11  target { powerpc-ibm-aix* }  (test for errors, line 12)
>
> Argh.  So why isn't it limited to the specified target as the
> documentation implies?

Where does it imply that?

# dg-error regexp comment [{ target/xfail selector } [{.|0|linenum}]]

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

Re: [PATCH] g++.dg/init/vbase1.C and g++.dg/cpp/ucn-1.C

[David Edelsohn]

On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 8:41 AM, Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> David Edelsohn <dje.gcc@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 5:16 AM, Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
>>> David Edelsohn <dje.gcc@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> +  int c\u0024c;        // { dg-error "not valid in an identifier" {
>>>> target { powerpc-ibm-aix* } } }
>>>
>>> FAIL: g++.dg/cpp/ucn-1.C  -std=gnu++11  target { powerpc-ibm-aix* }  (test for errors, line 12)
>>
>> Argh.  So why isn't it limited to the specified target as the
>> documentation implies?
>
> Where does it imply that?
>
> # dg-error regexp comment [{ target/xfail selector } [{.|0|linenum}]]

That's not right either.

I incorrectly read it as

dg-error regexp [comment] [{ target/xfail selector} [line] }]

- David

Re: [PATCH] g++.dg/init/vbase1.C and g++.dg/cpp/ucn-1.C

[Eric Botcazou]

> No RISC architecture can store directly to MEM, so the expected RTL in
> g++.dg/init/vbase1.C is wrong.  I am adding XFAIL for PowerPC.  This
> probably should be disabled for ARM and other RISC architectures.

Some of them can store 0 directly to MEM though, for example SPARC.

-- 
Eric Botcazou

Re: [PATCH] g++.dg/init/vbase1.C and g++.dg/cpp/ucn-1.C

[David Edelsohn]

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 4:15 AM, Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@adacore.com> wrote:
>> No RISC architecture can store directly to MEM, so the expected RTL in
>> g++.dg/init/vbase1.C is wrong.  I am adding XFAIL for PowerPC.  This
>> probably should be disabled for ARM and other RISC architectures.
>
> Some of them can store 0 directly to MEM though, for example SPARC.

As Mike said, this testcase isn't portable and needs to be limited to
the targets that support the particular idiom used in this testcase.

Thanks, David

Re: [PATCH] g++.dg/init/vbase1.C and g++.dg/cpp/ucn-1.C

[Renlin Li]

Hi David,

On 14/11/15 00:33, David Edelsohn wrote:
> No RISC architecture can store directly to MEM, so the expected RTL in
> g++.dg/init/vbase1.C is wrong.  I am adding XFAIL for PowerPC.  This
> probably should be disabled for ARM and other RISC architectures.

I observed the same problem in arm.

This passes for aarch64 and mips as they have zero register to do that. 
However, other RISC might not have that feature, for example arm and 
RS6000 in this  case.

https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg03239.html

Regards,
Renlin Li
>
> Dollar sign is not a valid identifier on AIX, so g++.dg/cpp/ucn-1.C
> will produce an additional error on AIX.
>
> * g++.dg/init/vbase1.C: XFAIL powerpc*-*-*.
> * g++.dg/cpp/ucn-1.C: Expect error for dollar sign identifier on AIX.
>
> Thanks, David
>
> Index: init/vbase1.C
> ===================================================================
> --- init/vbase1.C       (revision 230366)
> +++ init/vbase1.C       (working copy)
> @@ -42,4 +42,4 @@
>   // Verify that the SubB() mem-initializer is storing 0 directly into
>   // this->D.whatever rather than into a stack temp that is then copied into the
>   // base field.
> -// { dg-final { scan-rtl-dump "set
> \[^\n\]*\n\[^\n\]*this\[^\n\]*\n\[^\n\]*const_int 0" "expand" } }
> +// { dg-final { scan-rtl-dump "set
> \[^\n\]*\n\[^\n\]*this\[^\n\]*\n\[^\n\]*const_int 0" "expand" { xfail
> { powerpc*-*-* } } } }
> Index: cpp/ucn-1.C
> ===================================================================
> --- cpp/ucn-1.C (revision 230366)
> +++ cpp/ucn-1.C (working copy)
> @@ -7,8 +7,9 @@
>     "\u0041";                    // 'A' UCN is OK in string literal
>     '\u0041';                    // also OK in character literal
>
> -  int c\u0041c;                      // { dg-error "not valid in an
> identifier" }
> -  int c\u0024c;                      // $ is OK; not part of basic
> source char set
> +  int c\u0041c;                // { dg-error "not valid in an identifier" }
> +               // $ is OK on most targets; not part of basic source char set
> +  int c\u0024c;        // { dg-error "not valid in an identifier" {
> target { powerpc-ibm-aix* } } }
>
>     U"\uD800";             // { dg-error "not a valid universal character" }
>   }
>

Re: [PATCH] g++.dg/init/vbase1.C and g++.dg/cpp/ucn-1.C

[Mike Stump]

On Nov 16, 2015, at 6:02 AM, Renlin Li <renlin.li@arm.com> wrote:
> On 14/11/15 00:33, David Edelsohn wrote:
>> No RISC architecture can store directly to MEM, so the expected RTL in
>> g++.dg/init/vbase1.C is wrong.  I am adding XFAIL for PowerPC.  This
>> probably should be disabled for ARM and other RISC architectures.
> 
> I observed the same problem in arm.
> 
> This passes for aarch64 and mips as they have zero register to do that. However, other RISC might not have that feature, for example arm and RS6000 in this  case.

I fixed this with the below patch.  Tested on x86_64 linux, x86_64 darwin and my port.  If you want to list aarch64/arn and mips, please do.


	* g++.dg/init/vbase1.C: Only run on x86_64-*-* as this testcase
	isn't portable.

Index: g++.dg/init/vbase1.C
===================================================================
--- g++.dg/init/vbase1.C	(revision 230675)
+++ g++.dg/init/vbase1.C	(working copy)
@@ -42,4 +42,4 @@ int main(int, char**)
 // Verify that the SubB() mem-initializer is storing 0 directly into
 // this->D.whatever rather than into a stack temp that is then copied into the
 // base field.
-// { dg-final { scan-rtl-dump "set \[^\n\]*\n\[^\n\]*this\[^\n\]*\n\[^\n\]*const_int 0" "expand" { xfail { powerpc*-*-* } } } }
+// { dg-final { scan-rtl-dump "set \[^\n\]*\n\[^\n\]*this\[^\n\]*\n\[^\n\]*const_int 0" "expand" { target { x86_64-*-* } } } }

Re: [PATCH] g++.dg/init/vbase1.C and g++.dg/cpp/ucn-1.C

[Uros Bizjak]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 438 bytes --]

> I fixed this with the below patch.  Tested on x86_64 linux, x86_64 darwin and my port.  If you want to
> list aarch64/arn and mips, please do.
>
> * g++.dg/init/vbase1.C: Only run on x86_64-*-* as this testcase
> isn't portable.

I have added i?86-*-* to the list.

2015-11-21  Uros Bizjak  <ubizjak@gmail.com>

    * g++.dg/init/vbase1.C: Also run on i?86-*-*.

Tested on x86_64-linux-gnu {,-m32} and committed to mainline SVN.

Uros.

[-- Attachment #2: t.diff.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 628 bytes --]

Index: g++.dg/init/vbase1.C
===================================================================
--- g++.dg/init/vbase1.C	(revision 230701)
+++ g++.dg/init/vbase1.C	(working copy)
@@ -42,4 +42,4 @@
 // Verify that the SubB() mem-initializer is storing 0 directly into
 // this->D.whatever rather than into a stack temp that is then copied into the
 // base field.
-// { dg-final { scan-rtl-dump "set \[^\n\]*\n\[^\n\]*this\[^\n\]*\n\[^\n\]*const_int 0" "expand" { target { x86_64-*-* } } } }
+// { dg-final { scan-rtl-dump "set \[^\n\]*\n\[^\n\]*this\[^\n\]*\n\[^\n\]*const_int 0" "expand" { target { i?86-*-* x86_64-*-* } } } }