dg-warning: bogus target expectations?

dg-warning: bogus target expectations?

[DJ Delorie]

In gcc.dg/Wconversion-real.c we see this:

  vdouble = 3.1L; /* { dg-warning "conversion" "" { target large_long_double } } */

It turns out check_effective_target_large_long_double is NEVER called.
You can change it to some bogus string:

  fdouble (3.1L); /* { dg-warning "conversion" "" { target dj_wins } } */

and the test still passes - no complaints about a missing "dj_wins"
like you'd get with the dg-require-effective-target command.  Have we
been silently ignoring those warnings for *every* target all along?

I ask because I'm adding some new check-effectives, and reversed the
sense of the check to make sure it was doing its job, and found that
it wasn't.

Re: dg-warning: bogus target expectations?

[Janis Johnson]

On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 17:10 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
> In gcc.dg/Wconversion-real.c we see this:
> 
>   vdouble = 3.1L; /* { dg-warning "conversion" "" { target large_long_double } } */
> 
> It turns out check_effective_target_large_long_double is NEVER called.
> You can change it to some bogus string:
> 
>   fdouble (3.1L); /* { dg-warning "conversion" "" { target dj_wins } } */
> 
> and the test still passes - no complaints about a missing "dj_wins"
> like you'd get with the dg-require-effective-target command.  Have we
> been silently ignoring those warnings for *every* target all along?
> 
> I ask because I'm adding some new check-effectives, and reversed the
> sense of the check to make sure it was doing its job, and found that
> it wasn't.

I'm convinced that if check_effective_target_xxx exists then it is
called and the test directive works as intended.  You're correct,
though, that a bogus effective-target keyword is not flagged as an
error and is treated as if the target does not match.  This can be
fixed by removing the "catch" in the call to dg-error or dg-warning
from process-message in gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp.  I'll test
that to see what else might break as a result.

Thanks for reporting this.

Janis

Re: dg-warning: bogus target expectations?

[DJ Delorie]

> I'm convinced that if check_effective_target_xxx exists then it is
> called and the test directive works as intended.

Hmmm... how did you prove this?  I tried putting verbose in them,
nothing printed.  I tried reversing them, no change in test results.

Re: dg-warning: bogus target expectations?

[Janis Johnson]

On Mon, 2009-04-27 at 19:07 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
> > I'm convinced that if check_effective_target_xxx exists then it is
> > called and the test directive works as intended.
> 
> Hmmm... how did you prove this?  I tried putting verbose in them,
> nothing printed.  I tried reversing them, no change in test results.

I used send_log in GCC's override of dg-process-target and in the
one in DejaGnu when running gcc.target/powerpc/altivec-21.c and
other tests that differ for -m32 and -m64.  When you used verbose,
did you pass --verbose within RUNTESTFLAGS?

Janis

Re: dg-warning: bogus target expectations?

[DJ Delorie]

> When you used verbose, did you pass --verbose within RUNTESTFLAGS?

Yes, I passed enough -v's to see what was happening.  Odd.  Well, if
you've proven it to yourself, that's good enough for me.