Message ID | BDFEBBD8-CC0B-45D5-BFC6-79E7D2307C6B@lps.ens.fr |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
Series | dg-require-ifunc syntax | expand |
Hi Dominique, > On 19 May 2019, at 15:10, Dominique d'Humières <dominiq@lps.ens.fr> wrote: > > AFAICT the syntax for dg-require-ifunc seems to be > > /* { dg-require-ifunc "" } */ > > with two sets of exceptions: > > (1) gcc.target/i386/pr90500-*.c > > which explains > > FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr90500-1.c (test for errors, line 6) > FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr90500-1.c (test for warnings, line 6) > FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr90500-1.c (test for excess errors) > FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr90500-2.c (test for errors, line 6) > FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr90500-2.c (test for warnings, line 6) > FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr90500-2.c (test for excess errors) > > and is fixed with the trivial patch > > --- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr90500-1.c 2019-05-16 17:34:09.000000000 +0200 > +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr90500-1.c 2019-05-18 14:28:12.000000000 +0200 > @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ > /* PR middle-end/84723 */ > /* { dg-do compile } */ > -/* { dg-require-ifunc } */ > +/* { dg-require-ifunc "" } */ > > __attribute__((target_clones("arch=haswell", "default"))) int __tanh() {} > __typeof(__tanh) tanhf64 __attribute__((alias("__tanh")))/* { dg-error "clones for .target_clones. attribute cannot be created" } */ From a Darwin point of view, this is OK (it seems obvious to me, also). > --- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr90500-2.c 2019-05-16 17:34:09.000000000 +0200 > +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr90500-2.c 2019-05-18 14:28:25.000000000 +0200 > @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ > /* PR middle-end/84723 */ > /* { dg-do compile } */ > -/* { dg-require-ifunc } */ > +/* { dg-require-ifunc "" } */ > > __attribute__((target_clones("arch=haswell", "default"))) int __tanh() {} > __typeof(__tanh) tanhf64 __attribute__((alias("__tanh"),target_clones("arch=haswell", "default"))); /* { dg-error "clones for .target_clones. attribute cannot be created" } */ > > (2) gcc.target/i386/pr84723-*.c > > which succeed on darwin. What is the suitable fix for that? My assumption here is that the tests should not be run on a non-ifuncs target, but that it happens to be that they are testing for an erroneous condition - which by chance also gives the correct error on a non-ifuncs target. > > (a) Fix the dg-require-ifunc as above? I would prefer this, (it’s confusing to run tests for an unsupported functionality) - unless there is some other value to running the tests (will wait for comments on that). thanks for the patch. Iain > (b) Remove the line? > > TIA > > Dominique >
Hi Iain, > Hi Dominique, > >> On 19 May 2019, at 15:10, Dominique d'Humières <dominiq@lps.ens.fr> wrote: >> >> AFAICT the syntax for dg-require-ifunc seems to be >> >> /* { dg-require-ifunc "" } */ >> >> with two sets of exceptions: >> >> (1) gcc.target/i386/pr90500-*.c >> >> which explains >> >> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr90500-1.c (test for errors, line 6) >> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr90500-1.c (test for warnings, line 6) >> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr90500-1.c (test for excess errors) >> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr90500-2.c (test for errors, line 6) >> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr90500-2.c (test for warnings, line 6) >> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr90500-2.c (test for excess errors) >> >> and is fixed with the trivial patch >> >> --- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr90500-1.c 2019-05-16 >> 17:34:09.000000000 +0200 >> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr90500-1.c 2019-05-18 >> 14:28:12.000000000 +0200 >> @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ >> /* PR middle-end/84723 */ >> /* { dg-do compile } */ >> -/* { dg-require-ifunc } */ >> +/* { dg-require-ifunc "" } */ >> >> __attribute__((target_clones("arch=haswell", "default"))) int __tanh() {} >> __typeof(__tanh) tanhf64 __attribute__((alias("__tanh")))/* { dg-error >> "clones for .target_clones. attribute cannot be created" } */ > > From a Darwin point of view, this is OK (it seems obvious to me, also). indeed: I have the same issue on Solaris, too. >> --- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr90500-2.c 2019-05-16 >> 17:34:09.000000000 +0200 >> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr90500-2.c 2019-05-18 >> 14:28:25.000000000 +0200 >> @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ >> /* PR middle-end/84723 */ >> /* { dg-do compile } */ >> -/* { dg-require-ifunc } */ >> +/* { dg-require-ifunc "" } */ >> >> __attribute__((target_clones("arch=haswell", "default"))) int __tanh() {} >> __typeof(__tanh) tanhf64 >> __attribute__((alias("__tanh"),target_clones("arch=haswell", >> "default"))); /* { dg-error "clones for .target_clones. attribute cannot >> be created" } */ >> >> (2) gcc.target/i386/pr84723-*.c >> >> which succeed on darwin. What is the suitable fix for that? > > My assumption here is that the tests should not be run on a non-ifuncs target, > but that it happens to be that they are testing for an erroneous condition > - which by chance also gives the correct error on a non-ifuncs target. >> >> (a) Fix the dg-require-ifunc as above? > > I would prefer this, (it’s confusing to run tests for an unsupported > functionality) > - unless there is some other value to running the tests (will wait for comments > on that). Right: I guess we can wait for Jakub's take on that. The tests PASS on Solaris/x86 as well, which hasn't ifunc support either, and there are no gcc-testresults postings showing failures for this test anywhere. Prompted by the initial bug, I looked around a bit and found some more instances of the dg-require-* syntax problem. I'll commit them either together with the rest of separately, since this stuff tends to be copied around. Rainer
Rainer Orth <ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> writes: > Hi Iain, > >> Hi Dominique, >> >>> On 19 May 2019, at 15:10, Dominique d'Humières <dominiq@lps.ens.fr> wrote: >>> >>> AFAICT the syntax for dg-require-ifunc seems to be >>> >>> /* { dg-require-ifunc "" } */ >>> >>> with two sets of exceptions: >>> >>> (1) gcc.target/i386/pr90500-*.c >>> >>> which explains >>> >>> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr90500-1.c (test for errors, line 6) >>> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr90500-1.c (test for warnings, line 6) >>> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr90500-1.c (test for excess errors) >>> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr90500-2.c (test for errors, line 6) >>> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr90500-2.c (test for warnings, line 6) >>> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr90500-2.c (test for excess errors) >>> >>> and is fixed with the trivial patch >>> >>> --- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr90500-1.c 2019-05-16 >>> 17:34:09.000000000 +0200 >>> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr90500-1.c 2019-05-18 >>> 14:28:12.000000000 +0200 >>> @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ >>> /* PR middle-end/84723 */ >>> /* { dg-do compile } */ >>> -/* { dg-require-ifunc } */ >>> +/* { dg-require-ifunc "" } */ >>> >>> __attribute__((target_clones("arch=haswell", "default"))) int __tanh() {} >>> __typeof(__tanh) tanhf64 __attribute__((alias("__tanh")))/* { dg-error >>> "clones for .target_clones. attribute cannot be created" } */ >> >> From a Darwin point of view, this is OK (it seems obvious to me, also). > > indeed: I have the same issue on Solaris, too. > >>> --- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr90500-2.c 2019-05-16 >>> 17:34:09.000000000 +0200 >>> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr90500-2.c 2019-05-18 >>> 14:28:25.000000000 +0200 >>> @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ >>> /* PR middle-end/84723 */ >>> /* { dg-do compile } */ >>> -/* { dg-require-ifunc } */ >>> +/* { dg-require-ifunc "" } */ >>> >>> __attribute__((target_clones("arch=haswell", "default"))) int __tanh() {} >>> __typeof(__tanh) tanhf64 >>> __attribute__((alias("__tanh"),target_clones("arch=haswell", >>> "default"))); /* { dg-error "clones for .target_clones. attribute cannot >>> be created" } */ >>> >>> (2) gcc.target/i386/pr84723-*.c >>> >>> which succeed on darwin. What is the suitable fix for that? >> >> My assumption here is that the tests should not be run on a non-ifuncs target, >> but that it happens to be that they are testing for an erroneous condition >> - which by chance also gives the correct error on a non-ifuncs target. >>> >>> (a) Fix the dg-require-ifunc as above? >> >> I would prefer this, (it’s confusing to run tests for an unsupported >> functionality) >> - unless there is some other value to running the tests (will wait for comments >> on that). > > Right: I guess we can wait for Jakub's take on that. The tests PASS on > Solaris/x86 as well, which hasn't ifunc support either, and there are no > gcc-testresults postings showing failures for this test anywhere. > > Prompted by the initial bug, I looked around a bit and found some more > instances of the dg-require-* syntax problem. I'll commit them either > together with the rest of separately, since this stuff tends to be > copied around. Given no response from Jakub and no indication that gcc.target/i386/pr84723-?.c fails anywhere, I've installed the following patch on mainline. Tested on i386-pc-solaris2.11, sparc-sun-solaris2.11, and x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Rainer
--- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr90500-1.c 2019-05-16 17:34:09.000000000 +0200 +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr90500-1.c 2019-05-18 14:28:12.000000000 +0200 @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ /* PR middle-end/84723 */ /* { dg-do compile } */ -/* { dg-require-ifunc } */ +/* { dg-require-ifunc "" } */ __attribute__((target_clones("arch=haswell", "default"))) int __tanh() {} __typeof(__tanh) tanhf64 __attribute__((alias("__tanh")))/* { dg-error "clones for .target_clones. attribute cannot be created" } */ --- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr90500-2.c 2019-05-16 17:34:09.000000000 +0200 +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr90500-2.c 2019-05-18 14:28:25.000000000 +0200 @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ /* PR middle-end/84723 */ /* { dg-do compile } */ -/* { dg-require-ifunc } */ +/* { dg-require-ifunc "" } */ __attribute__((target_clones("arch=haswell", "default"))) int __tanh() {} __typeof(__tanh) tanhf64 __attribute__((alias("__tanh"),target_clones("arch=haswell", "default"))); /* { dg-error "clones for .target_clones. attribute cannot be created" } */