Hi,
On Wed, Sep 26 2018, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 at 17:50, Martin Jambor <mjam...@suse.cz> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 24 2018, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> > On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 at 20:46, Martin Jambor <mjam...@suse.cz> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> the test added to check whether _Float128 types are handled correctly by
>> >> the new warning about suspicious calls to abs-like functions fails on
>> >> many platforms. The patch below circumvents the problem by running on
>> >> i686/x86_64 only. I understand that the proper solution would be to
>> >> come up with a deja-gnu predicate and skip-if it was not provided but I
>> >> think that for one simple test that is a bit of an overkill and testing
>> >> it on x86_64 will provide all the test coverage we need.
>> >>
>> >> Tested on x86_64-linux and aarch64-linux, testing on i686-linux
>> >> pending. OK for trunk?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >>
>> >> Martin
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 2018-09-24 Martin Jambor <mjam...@suse.cz>
>> >>
>> >> PR testsuite/87339
>> >> * gcc.dg/warn-abs-1.c: Do not test _Float128. Remove dg-skip-if.
>> >> * gcc.target/i386/warn-abs-3.c: New test.
>> >> ---
>> >> gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/warn-abs-1.c | 4 +---
>> >> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/warn-abs-3.c | 12 ++++++++++++
>> >> 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>> >> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/warn-abs-3.c
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/warn-abs-1.c
>> >> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/warn-abs-1.c
>> >> index 129a3af8ac6..b494b14f4a9 100644
>> >> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/warn-abs-1.c
>> >> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/warn-abs-1.c
>> >> @@ -1,5 +1,4 @@
>> >> /* { dg-do compile { target float128 } } */
>> >
>> > Don't you want to remove the {target float128} part?
>>
>> I did notice it but yes, I do want to remove it. I am therefore going
>> to commit the following after re-testing on x86_64-linux and
>> aarch64-linux.
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>
> Hi, thanks for this fix.
> Now the test runs on ARM, but fails because of two missing warnings:
> gcc.dg/warn-abs-1.c (test for warnings, line 46)
> gcc.dg/warn-abs-1.c (test for warnings, line 60)
> which correspond to:
> *pld = fabs (*pld); /* { dg-warning "may cause truncation of value" } */
> *pcld = cabs (*pcld); /* { dg-warning "may cause truncation of value" } */
>
I see, I guess the easiest is to skip the test on targets that do not
really have long double, although if someone thinks that is too
restrictive, I can also split the test again and move long double bits
to a separate test.
Can you please test whether the following helps?
Thanks and sorry for the disruptions,
Martin
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/warn-abs-1.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/warn-abs-1.c
index 1c487270042..88389ec6be8 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/warn-abs-1.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/warn-abs-1.c
@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-require-effective-target large_long_double } */
/* { dg-options "-Wabsolute-value" } */
#include <stdlib.h>
