> On Nov 2, 2018, at 3:19 PM, Rainer Orth <r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:
>
> Hi Paul,
>
>> This patch fixes a number of test case failures on pdp11. Some are too
>> large for the address space, some have dependencies on the float format that
>> don't match the DEC format, some add pdp11 to the targets that expect
>> particular compiler messages.
>
> unfortunately, even apart from the two bugs in your patch Andreas
> already fixed, there are more problems: with the patch one gets 20
> warnings
>
> WARNING: compat.exp does not support dg-skip-if
>
> in mail-report.log for gcc.dg/compat. While the message is misleading
> and it took me a moment to understand what's wrong, you should have
> found this in your testing. A good way something like this doesn't go
> unnoticed in a regtest is to run make mail-report.log in a vanilla and
> patched tree and compare the output. Those WARNING and ERROR lines are
> prominent there for a reason ;-)
My apologies for these errors. I will strive to learn from the feedback you
and Andreas have given and do it better next time.
I wasn't ware of mail-report -- I have used contrib/test_summary in the past.
What makes it more difficult in this case is that most of these test cases have
not run in a long time (if ever) so the volume is quite large. I'm getting it
down to a more manageable number, though 1000 out of 60k is still much higher
than it should be.
> While we give target maintainers quite a bit of leeway to apply
> testsuite patches affecting only their targets, this needs to be
> exercised with caution. Best test the modified testsuite on a different
> target, too, to check that it doesn't break there.
I understand, I will do so in the future.
> Besides, a bit more detail on the failures you observe without your
> patch would have been helpful. I noticed that some of the tests you
> change already have dg-skip-if directives for avr with a comment of
> "Program too big". It's hard to tell if this is the same issue as your
> "limited code space". If so, it would be advisable and much more
> expressive to introduce (yet another) effective-target keyword for this.
I could use "! ptr32plus". I'm a bit hesitant to do so because I don't know
what othe targets might match that. msp430, based on the comment, and possibly
others. For tests that allocate megabyte buffers that's an obvious fit. For
tests that generate large blocks of code it isn't quite so obvious; the
gcc.gd/long_branch.c test is too big for pdp11 but it might be ok for other
"small" targets.
> The problem is that in the g??.dg/compat testsuites, dg keywords except
> for dg-options are only supposed to go into the *_main.c file. The
> following patch fixes this. Tested on i386-pc-solaris2.11 and
> sparc-sun-solaris2.11, installed on mainline.
Thank you. How can I tell for a particular test case or test directory what
the rules are for where "dg" directives go, or which ones are supported? I
know there is a fair amount of variability in this, but I don't yet understand
what they all are.
paul
