From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 95003 invoked by alias); 4 Apr 2015 08:08:30 -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 94993 invoked by uid 89); 4 Apr 2015 08:08:29 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-ob0-f172.google.com Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (HELO mail-ob0-f172.google.com) (209.85.214.172) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Sat, 04 Apr 2015 08:08:29 +0000 Received: by obbec2 with SMTP id ec2so194436966obb.3 for ; Sat, 04 Apr 2015 01:08:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.255.195 with SMTP id as3mr7208913obd.56.1428134907094; Sat, 04 Apr 2015 01:08:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.60.151.175 with HTTP; Sat, 4 Apr 2015 01:08:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20150403145207.GC23405@msticlxl7.ims.intel.com> References: <20150403110229.GB23405@msticlxl7.ims.intel.com> <20150403145207.GC23405@msticlxl7.ims.intel.com> Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2015 08:08:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH, i386] PR63211 broken type-punning in avx* tests. From: Uros Bizjak To: GCC Patches Cc: Kirill Yukhin , Ilya Tocar , Mike Stump , Rainer Orth Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-SW-Source: 2015-04/txt/msg00152.txt.bz2 On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Ilya Tocar wrote: > On 03 Apr 13:39, Uros Bizjak wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Ilya Tocar wrote: >> >> > I've looked into avx* tests and many of them (even those that don't fail >> > in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63211) use invalid type >> > punning. Properly fixing them looks like a lot of work, so I propose >> > just adding -fno-strict-aliasing to them. >> > This patch was obtained by running >> > sed -i "s/-O2/-O2 -fno-strict-aliasing/g" ../gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/avx*-2.c >> > >> > Ok for stage1? >> >> I don't like this approach. If the testcase is broken, then it should >> be fixed, not worked around. >> > IMHO those tests don't need to be alias conformant. > There are plenty of tests for aliasing rules, > and avx tests verify intrinsics implementaion. There are plenty of real > programs braking alias rules, so why can't we have non-conformant tests? I don't agree with the above. Tests have to be conformant, no matter what they test. Recent c11 cleanup is an example, where all non-conformant tests were fixed to be c11 conformant (in contrast to only slapping -std=c89 into their flags). The deviation from the above rule has to be approved from the testsuite maintainers. It represents possible maintenance issue in the future. Uros.