| Message ID | 535E38ED.7010906@arm.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 12:18:05PM +0100, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > Hi all, > > I noticed this test is failing on aarch64: > > FAIL: gcc.dg/pr60114.c (test for warnings, line 7) > FAIL: gcc.dg/pr60114.c (test for warnings, line 8) > FAIL: gcc.dg/pr60114.c (test for warnings, line 21) > FAIL: gcc.dg/pr60114.c (test for warnings, line 22) > FAIL: gcc.dg/pr60114.c (test for warnings, line 23) > FAIL: gcc.dg/pr60114.c (test for warnings, line 25) > FAIL: gcc.dg/pr60114.c (test for excess errors) > > The test was recently added with > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-02/msg00592.html Sorry, I tested x86_64, both -m64 and -m32, but I don't test ARM. > The offending code is of the form: > > > const char z[] = { > [0] = 0x100, /* { dg-warning "9:overflow in implicit constant conversion" } */ > [2] = 0x101, /* { dg-warning "9:overflow in implicit constant conversion" } */ > }; > > > On aarch64 (and arm) chars are unsigned by default so instead we get > the warning "large integer implicitly truncated to unsigned type". > > This patch explicitly uses signed chars in the test as suggested by richi in the PR. > > Ok for trunk? Looks good. Marek
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr60114.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr60114.c index 83f9852..c656a95 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr60114.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr60114.c @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ /* { dg-options "-Wconversion" } */ struct S { int n, u[2]; }; -const char z[] = { +const signed char z[] = { [0] = 0x100, /* { dg-warning "9:overflow in implicit constant conversion" } */ [2] = 0x101, /* { dg-warning "9:overflow in implicit constant conversion" } */ }; @@ -18,11 +18,11 @@ typedef int H[]; void foo (void) { - char a[][3] = { { 0x100, /* { dg-warning "21:overflow in implicit constant conversion" } */ + signed char a[][3] = { { 0x100, /* { dg-warning "28:overflow in implicit constant conversion" } */ 1, 0x100 }, /* { dg-warning "24:overflow in implicit constant conversion" } */ { '\0', 0x100, '\0' } /* { dg-warning "27:overflow in implicit constant conversion" } */ }; - (const char []) { 0x100 }; /* { dg-warning "21:overflow in implicit constant conversion" } */ + (const signed char []) { 0x100 }; /* { dg-warning "28:overflow in implicit constant conversion" } */ (const float []) { 1e0, 1e1, 1e100 }; /* { dg-warning "32:conversion" } */ struct S s1 = { 0x80000000 }; /* { dg-warning "19:conversion of unsigned constant value to negative integer" } */ struct S s2 = { .n = 0x80000000 }; /* { dg-warning "24:conversion of unsigned constant value to negative integer" } */
Hi all, I noticed this test is failing on aarch64: FAIL: gcc.dg/pr60114.c (test for warnings, line 7) FAIL: gcc.dg/pr60114.c (test for warnings, line 8) FAIL: gcc.dg/pr60114.c (test for warnings, line 21) FAIL: gcc.dg/pr60114.c (test for warnings, line 22) FAIL: gcc.dg/pr60114.c (test for warnings, line 23) FAIL: gcc.dg/pr60114.c (test for warnings, line 25) FAIL: gcc.dg/pr60114.c (test for excess errors) The test was recently added with http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-02/msg00592.html The offending code is of the form: const char z[] = { [0] = 0x100, /* { dg-warning "9:overflow in implicit constant conversion" } */ [2] = 0x101, /* { dg-warning "9:overflow in implicit constant conversion" } */ }; On aarch64 (and arm) chars are unsigned by default so instead we get the warning "large integer implicitly truncated to unsigned type". This patch explicitly uses signed chars in the test as suggested by richi in the PR. Ok for trunk? Thanks, Kyrill 2014-04-28 Kyrylo Tkachov <kyrylo.tkachov@arm.com> PR c/60983 * gcc.dg/pr60114.c: Use signed chars.