On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 12:07:46PM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Dec 1, 2014, at 2:52 AM, Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 11:00:12PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >> On 11/27/2014 08:57 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> >>> -/* { dg-error "is not a constant expression" "" { target c++ } 12 } */
> >>> +/* { dg-error "" "" { xfail { *-*-* } } 11 } */
> >>
> >> Please keep the expected message.
> >
> > Done in the below.
> >
> > 2014-12-01 Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com>
> >
> > PR sanitizer/63956
> > * ubsan.c (is_ubsan_builtin_p): Check also built-in class.
> > cp/
> > * constexpr.c: Include ubsan.h.
> > (cxx_eval_call_expression): Bail out for IFN_UBSAN_{NULL,BOUNDS}
> > internal functions and for ubsan builtins.
> > * error.c: Include internal-fn.h.
> > (dump_expr): Add printing of internal functions.
> > testsuite/
> > * c-c++-common/ubsan/shift-5.c: Add fails.
>
> Do you see:
>
> PASS: c-c++-common/ubsan/shift-5.c -O0 (test for errors, line 11)
> XFAIL: c-c++-common/ubsan/shift-5.c -O0 (test for errors, line 11)
> PASS: c-c++-common/ubsan/shift-5.c -O0 (test for errors, line 14)
> XFAIL: c-c++-common/ubsan/shift-5.c -O0 (test for errors, line 14)
> PASS: c-c++-common/ubsan/shift-5.c -O0 (test for errors, line 17)
> XFAIL: c-c++-common/ubsan/shift-5.c -O0 (test for errors, line 17)
> PASS: c-c++-common/ubsan/shift-5.c -O0 (test for errors, line 20)
> XFAIL: c-c++-common/ubsan/shift-5.c -O0 (test for errors, line 20)
> PASS: c-c++-common/ubsan/shift-5.c -O0 (test for errors, line 34)
> XFAIL: c-c++-common/ubsan/shift-5.c -O0 (test for errors, line 34)
> PASS: c-c++-common/ubsan/shift-5.c -O0 (test for errors, line 37)
> XFAIL: c-c++-common/ubsan/shift-5.c -O0 (test for errors, line 37)
>
> on x86_64 on linux?
>
> If so, this really isn’t cool. You cannot have the same name as both pass
> and fail. At the heart of regression analysis is the notion that no test
> that passed before now fails. One can run contrib/compare_tests to see if a
> patch one is working on has any regressions in it, the beauty of the script
> is it will tell you in plain language if there are any regressions or not.
> The standard for gcc is, no regressions.
>
> Could you find a way to fix this? Splitting into C and C++ test cases might
> be one way. Fixing any expected failures might be another.
Sorry for not replying sooner.
The following patch splits the test into C and C++ test cases, so
hopefully fixing the issue. Ok for trunk?
2015-02-11 Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com>
* g++.dg/ubsan/shift-1.C: New test.
* gcc.dg/ubsan/c-shift-2.c: New test.
* c-c++-common/ubsan/shift-5.c: Remove file.
diff --git gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ubsan/shift-1.C
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ubsan/shift-1.C
index e69de29..8a71279 100644
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ubsan/shift-1.C
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ubsan/shift-1.C
@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-fsanitize=shift -w" } */
+/* { dg-shouldfail "ubsan" } */
+
+int
+foo (int x)
+{
+ /* None of the following should pass. */
+ switch (x)
+ {
+ case 1 >> -1:
+/* { dg-error "is not a constant expression" "" { xfail { *-*-* } } 11 } */
+ case -1 >> -1:
+/* { dg-error "is not a constant expression" "" { xfail { *-*-* } } 13 } */
+ case 1 << -1:
+/* { dg-error "is not a constant expression" "" { xfail { *-*-* } } 15 } */
+ case -1 << -1:
+/* { dg-error "is not a constant expression" "" { xfail { *-*-* } } 17 } */
+ return 1;
+ }
+ return 0;
+}
+
+int
+bar (int x)
+{
+ /* None of the following should pass. */
+ switch (x)
+ {
+ case -1 >> 200:
+/* { dg-error "is not a constant expression" "" { xfail { *-*-* } } 30 } */
+ case 1 << 200:
+/* { dg-error "is not a constant expression" "" { xfail { *-*-* } } 32 } */
+ return 1;
+ }
+ return 0;
+}
diff --git gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/ubsan/c-shift-2.c
gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/ubsan/c-shift-2.c
index e69de29..beb0dbe 100644
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/ubsan/c-shift-2.c
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/ubsan/c-shift-2.c
@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-fsanitize=shift -w" } */
+/* { dg-shouldfail "ubsan" } */
+
+int
+foo (int x)
+{
+ /* None of the following should pass. */
+ switch (x)
+ {
+ case 1 >> -1: /* { dg-error "case label does not reduce to an integer
constant" } */
+ case -1 >> -1: /* { dg-error "case label does not reduce to an integer
constant" } */
+ case 1 << -1: /* { dg-error "case label does not reduce to an integer
constant" } */
+ case -1 << -1: /* { dg-error "case label does not reduce to an integer
constant" } */
+ return 1;
+ }
+ return 0;
+}
+
+int
+bar (int x)
+{
+ /* None of the following should pass. */
+ switch (x)
+ {
+ case -1 >> 200: /* { dg-error "case label does not reduce to an integer
constant" } */
+ case 1 << 200: /* { dg-error "case label does not reduce to an integer
constant" } */
+ return 1;
+ }
+ return 0;
+}
Marek
