[PR,target/85401] Add test-cases
diff mbox series

Message ID 20191004194333.GA3137@SDF.ORG
State New
Headers show
Series
  • [PR,target/85401] Add test-cases
Related show

Commit Message

Maya Rashish Oct. 4, 2019, 7:43 p.m. UTC
On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 01:26:16PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 9/30/19 2:45 PM, coypu@sdf.org wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 11:46:24AM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> >> Yes, the patch is mostly ok.  You can commit it into the trunk after
> >> applying changes mentioned below. If you do not have a write access, let me
> >> know I'll commit the patch by myself.
> > 
> > I don't have commit access. It would be nice if you committed it :)
> I took care of the nits and committed the patch.
> 
> 
> > 
> >> It would be nice to add a small test too.  But it is not obligatory for this
> >> case as the patch is obvious and it might be hard to create a small test to
> >> reproduce the bug.
> > 
> > I have the C code that produces this failure. I can creduce it, but I'm
> > not sure there's a relationship between it and the bug.
> > Doing unrelated changes (adding instruction scheduling) to vax also hid it.
> > 
> > Is this kind of test still valuable?
> Often they are.
> 
> jeff

Here's the two tests I used. It might be too machine-made.
One is in the vax specific directory since it needed -fno-pic.


2019-10-04  Maya Rashish  <coypu@sdf.org>
	* gcc.c-torture/compile/pr85401-2.c: New test.
	* gcc.target/vax/pr85401-1.c: New test.

Comments

Jeff Law Oct. 4, 2019, 8:28 p.m. UTC | #1
On 10/4/19 1:43 PM, coypu@sdf.org wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 01:26:16PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 9/30/19 2:45 PM, coypu@sdf.org wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 11:46:24AM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
>>>> Yes, the patch is mostly ok.  You can commit it into the trunk after
>>>> applying changes mentioned below. If you do not have a write access, let me
>>>> know I'll commit the patch by myself.
>>>
>>> I don't have commit access. It would be nice if you committed it :)
>> I took care of the nits and committed the patch.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> It would be nice to add a small test too.  But it is not obligatory for this
>>>> case as the patch is obvious and it might be hard to create a small test to
>>>> reproduce the bug.
>>>
>>> I have the C code that produces this failure. I can creduce it, but I'm
>>> not sure there's a relationship between it and the bug.
>>> Doing unrelated changes (adding instruction scheduling) to vax also hid it.
>>>
>>> Is this kind of test still valuable?
>> Often they are.
>>
>> jeff
> 
> Here's the two tests I used. It might be too machine-made.
> One is in the vax specific directory since it needed -fno-pic.
> 
> 
> 2019-10-04  Maya Rashish  <coypu@sdf.org>
> 	* gcc.c-torture/compile/pr85401-2.c: New test.
> 	* gcc.target/vax/pr85401-1.c: New test.
ISTM that both should be in c-torture.  We can use dg-* things in there too.

jeff

Patch
diff mbox series

diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr85401-2.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr85401-2.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1d68d0b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr85401-2.c
@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@ 
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2" } */
+
+int h(void);
+int i(int);
+
+struct a b;
+struct a {
+  unsigned c : 4;
+} d() {
+  int e, f = b.c << 2, g = h();
+  for (; g;)
+    ;
+  if (e == 0)
+    if (f)
+      i(f);
+  return b;
+}
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/vax/pr85401-1.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/vax/pr85401-1.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3a06f45
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/vax/pr85401-1.c
@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@ 
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2 -fno-pic" } */
+
+int f;
+struct ac g;
+void h();
+void j() {}
+struct c {
+  int d;
+} k() {
+  ((struct c *)j)->d ^= f;
+}
+int *l();
+struct ac {
+  unsigned i : 4;
+} m() {
+  int *a, *c;
+  int b = g.i << 2, d, e;
+  ((struct c *)j)->d & 8;
+  a = l();
+  c = a;
+  h();
+  if (c)
+    goto aj;
+  h();
+  d = b;
+  for (; d; d -= e += e)
+    h();
+aj:
+  k();
+}