diff mbox series

testsuite work-around compound-assignment-1.c C++ failures on various targets [PR111377]

Message ID ZQANHzUrgBvCqzc2@tucnak
State Unresolved
Headers
Series testsuite work-around compound-assignment-1.c C++ failures on various targets [PR111377] |

Checks

Context Check Description
snail/gcc-patch-check warning Git am fail log

Commit Message

Jakub Jelinek Sept. 12, 2023, 7:02 a.m. UTC 
  On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 11:11:30PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 07:27:57PM +0200, Benjamin Priour via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > Thanks for the report,
> > 
> > After investigation it seems the location of the new dejagnu directive for
> > C++ differs depending on the configuration.
> > The expected warning is still emitted, but its location differ slightly.
> > I expect it to be not an issue per se of the analyzer, but a divergence in
> > the FE between the two configurations.
> 
> I think the divergence is whether called_by_test_5b returns the struct
> in registers or in memory.  If in memory (like in the x86_64 -m32 case), we have
>   [compound-assignment-1.c:71:21] D.3191 = called_by_test_5b (); [return slot optimization]
>   [compound-assignment-1.c:71:21 discrim 1] D.3191 ={v} {CLOBBER(eol)};
>   [compound-assignment-1.c:72:1] return;
> in the IL, while if in registers (like x86_64 -m64 case), just
>   [compound-assignment-1.c:71:21] D.3591 = called_by_test_5b ();
>   [compound-assignment-1.c:72:1] return;
> 
> If you just want to avoid the differences, putting } on the same line as the
> call might be a usable workaround for that.

Here is the workaround in patch form.  Tested on x86_64-linux -m32/-m64, ok
for trunk?

2023-09-12  Jakub Jelinek  <jakub@redhat.com>

	PR testsuite/111377
	* c-c++-common/analyzer/compound-assignment-1.c (test_5b): Move
	closing } to the same line as the call to work-around differences in
	diagnostics line.



	Jakub

Comments

David Malcolm Sept. 13, 2023, 9:58 p.m. UTC | #1 
On Tue, 2023-09-12 at 09:02 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 11:11:30PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-
> patches wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 07:27:57PM +0200, Benjamin Priour via Gcc-
> > patches wrote:
> > > Thanks for the report,
> > > 
> > > After investigation it seems the location of the new dejagnu
> > > directive for
> > > C++ differs depending on the configuration.
> > > The expected warning is still emitted, but its location differ
> > > slightly.
> > > I expect it to be not an issue per se of the analyzer, but a
> > > divergence in
> > > the FE between the two configurations.
> > 
> > I think the divergence is whether called_by_test_5b returns the
> > struct
> > in registers or in memory.  If in memory (like in the x86_64 -m32
> > case), we have
> >   [compound-assignment-1.c:71:21] D.3191 = called_by_test_5b ();
> > [return slot optimization]
> >   [compound-assignment-1.c:71:21 discrim 1] D.3191 ={v}
> > {CLOBBER(eol)};
> >   [compound-assignment-1.c:72:1] return;
> > in the IL, while if in registers (like x86_64 -m64 case), just
> >   [compound-assignment-1.c:71:21] D.3591 = called_by_test_5b ();
> >   [compound-assignment-1.c:72:1] return;
> > 
> > If you just want to avoid the differences, putting } on the same
> > line as the
> > call might be a usable workaround for that.
> 
> Here is the workaround in patch form.  Tested on x86_64-linux -m32/-
> m64, ok
> for trunk?

Yes, thanks!

Dave

> 
> 2023-09-12  Jakub Jelinek  <jakub@redhat.com>
> 
>         PR testsuite/111377
>         * c-c++-common/analyzer/compound-assignment-1.c (test_5b):
> Move
>         closing } to the same line as the call to work-around
> differences in
>         diagnostics line.
> 
> --- gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/analyzer/compound-assignment-
> 1.c.jj      2023-09-11 11:05:47.523727789 +0200
> +++ gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/analyzer/compound-assignment-1.c 2023-
> 09-12 08:58:52.854231161 +0200
> @@ -68,5 +68,8 @@ called_by_test_5b (void)
>  
>  void test_5b (void)
>  {
> -  called_by_test_5b ();
> -} /* { dg-warning "leak of '<anonymous>.ptr_wrapper::ptr'" "" {
> target c++ } } */
> +  called_by_test_5b (); }
> +/* { dg-warning "leak of '<anonymous>.ptr_wrapper::ptr'" "" { target
> c++ } .-1 } */
> +/* The closing } above is intentionally on the same line as the
> call, because
> +   otherwise the exact line of the diagnostics depends on whether
> the
> +   called_by_test_5b () call satisfies aggregate_value_p or not.  */
> 
> 
>         Jakub
>
Jakub Jelinek Sept. 19, 2023, 7:20 a.m. UTC | #2 
Hi!

On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 09:02:55AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 11:11:30PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 07:27:57PM +0200, Benjamin Priour via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > > Thanks for the report,
> > > 
> > > After investigation it seems the location of the new dejagnu directive for
> > > C++ differs depending on the configuration.
> > > The expected warning is still emitted, but its location differ slightly.
> > > I expect it to be not an issue per se of the analyzer, but a divergence in
> > > the FE between the two configurations.
> > 
> > I think the divergence is whether called_by_test_5b returns the struct
> > in registers or in memory.  If in memory (like in the x86_64 -m32 case), we have
> >   [compound-assignment-1.c:71:21] D.3191 = called_by_test_5b (); [return slot optimization]
> >   [compound-assignment-1.c:71:21 discrim 1] D.3191 ={v} {CLOBBER(eol)};
> >   [compound-assignment-1.c:72:1] return;
> > in the IL, while if in registers (like x86_64 -m64 case), just
> >   [compound-assignment-1.c:71:21] D.3591 = called_by_test_5b ();
> >   [compound-assignment-1.c:72:1] return;
> > 
> > If you just want to avoid the differences, putting } on the same line as the
> > call might be a usable workaround for that.
> 
> Here is the workaround in patch form.  Tested on x86_64-linux -m32/-m64, ok
> for trunk?

I'd like to ping this patch.

> 2023-09-12  Jakub Jelinek  <jakub@redhat.com>
> 
> 	PR testsuite/111377
> 	* c-c++-common/analyzer/compound-assignment-1.c (test_5b): Move
> 	closing } to the same line as the call to work-around differences in
> 	diagnostics line.
> 
> --- gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/analyzer/compound-assignment-1.c.jj	2023-09-11 11:05:47.523727789 +0200
> +++ gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/analyzer/compound-assignment-1.c	2023-09-12 08:58:52.854231161 +0200
> @@ -68,5 +68,8 @@ called_by_test_5b (void)
>  
>  void test_5b (void)
>  {
> -  called_by_test_5b ();
> -} /* { dg-warning "leak of '<anonymous>.ptr_wrapper::ptr'" "" { target c++ } } */
> +  called_by_test_5b (); }
> +/* { dg-warning "leak of '<anonymous>.ptr_wrapper::ptr'" "" { target c++ } .-1 } */
> +/* The closing } above is intentionally on the same line as the call, because
> +   otherwise the exact line of the diagnostics depends on whether the
> +   called_by_test_5b () call satisfies aggregate_value_p or not.  */
> 
> 
> 	Jakub

	Jakub
David Malcolm Sept. 19, 2023, 2:47 p.m. UTC | #3 
On Tue, 2023-09-19 at 09:20 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 09:02:55AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-
> patches wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 11:11:30PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-
> > patches wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 07:27:57PM +0200, Benjamin Priour via
> > > Gcc-patches wrote:
> > > > Thanks for the report,
> > > > 
> > > > After investigation it seems the location of the new dejagnu
> > > > directive for
> > > > C++ differs depending on the configuration.
> > > > The expected warning is still emitted, but its location differ
> > > > slightly.
> > > > I expect it to be not an issue per se of the analyzer, but a
> > > > divergence in
> > > > the FE between the two configurations.
> > > 
> > > I think the divergence is whether called_by_test_5b returns the
> > > struct
> > > in registers or in memory.  If in memory (like in the x86_64 -m32
> > > case), we have
> > >   [compound-assignment-1.c:71:21] D.3191 = called_by_test_5b ();
> > > [return slot optimization]
> > >   [compound-assignment-1.c:71:21 discrim 1] D.3191 ={v}
> > > {CLOBBER(eol)};
> > >   [compound-assignment-1.c:72:1] return;
> > > in the IL, while if in registers (like x86_64 -m64 case), just
> > >   [compound-assignment-1.c:71:21] D.3591 = called_by_test_5b ();
> > >   [compound-assignment-1.c:72:1] return;
> > > 
> > > If you just want to avoid the differences, putting } on the same
> > > line as the
> > > call might be a usable workaround for that.
> > 
> > Here is the workaround in patch form.  Tested on x86_64-linux -
> > m32/-m64, ok
> > for trunk?
> 
> I'd like to ping this patch.

OK

Dave

> 
> > 2023-09-12  Jakub Jelinek  <jakub@redhat.com>
> > 
> >         PR testsuite/111377
> >         * c-c++-common/analyzer/compound-assignment-1.c (test_5b):
> > Move
> >         closing } to the same line as the call to work-around
> > differences in
> >         diagnostics line.
> > 
> > --- gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/analyzer/compound-assignment-
> > 1.c.jj      2023-09-11 11:05:47.523727789 +0200
> > +++ gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/analyzer/compound-assignment-
> > 1.c 2023-09-12 08:58:52.854231161 +0200
> > @@ -68,5 +68,8 @@ called_by_test_5b (void)
> >  
> >  void test_5b (void)
> >  {
> > -  called_by_test_5b ();
> > -} /* { dg-warning "leak of '<anonymous>.ptr_wrapper::ptr'" "" {
> > target c++ } } */
> > +  called_by_test_5b (); }
> > +/* { dg-warning "leak of '<anonymous>.ptr_wrapper::ptr'" "" {
> > target c++ } .-1 } */
> > +/* The closing } above is intentionally on the same line as the
> > call, because
> > +   otherwise the exact line of the diagnostics depends on whether
> > the
> > +   called_by_test_5b () call satisfies aggregate_value_p or not. 
> > */
> > 
> > 
> >         Jakub
> 
>         Jakub
>
diff mbox series

Patch

--- gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/analyzer/compound-assignment-1.c.jj	2023-09-11 11:05:47.523727789 +0200
+++ gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/analyzer/compound-assignment-1.c	2023-09-12 08:58:52.854231161 +0200
@@ -68,5 +68,8 @@  called_by_test_5b (void)
 
 void test_5b (void)
 {
-  called_by_test_5b ();
-} /* { dg-warning "leak of '<anonymous>.ptr_wrapper::ptr'" "" { target c++ } } */
+  called_by_test_5b (); }
+/* { dg-warning "leak of '<anonymous>.ptr_wrapper::ptr'" "" { target c++ } .-1 } */
+/* The closing } above is intentionally on the same line as the call, because
+   otherwise the exact line of the diagnostics depends on whether the
+   called_by_test_5b () call satisfies aggregate_value_p or not.  */