On 12/3/18 9:25 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Here is a fix for the testcase, so that it doesn't FAIL pretty much
> everywhere.
>
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 04:07:31PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> PR middle-end/64242
>>> * gcc.c-torture/execute/pr64242.c: New test.
>> THanks for tracking this down. I'd like to have this run through my
>> next testing cycle, so I went ahead and installed it for you.
>
> What I've tested:
> 1) x86_64-linux {-m32,-m64} - without the testcase patch, the testcase FAILs
> without or with the builtins.c change; with the testcase patch and
> witout the builtins.c change, there is
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr64242.c -O2 execution test
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr64242.c -O3 -g execution test
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr64242.c -Os execution test
> for -m32 and no FAILs for -m64, with the builtins.c change the tests
> passes on both -m32 and -m64
> 2) powerpc64-linux {-m32,-m64} - without the testcase patch, the testcase
> FAILs without and with the builtins.c change for -m32. With the testcase
> patch and without the builtins.c change, there is
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr64242.c -O0 execution test
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr64242.c -O1 execution test
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr64242.c -O2 execution test
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr64242.c -O3 -g execution test
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr64242.c -Os execution test
> for -m32 and
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr64242.c -O0 execution test
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr64242.c -O1 execution test
> for -m64, with the builtins.c change everything passes
> 3) aarch64-linux - both without and with the testcase patch, the
> testcase FAILs without the builtins.c change and passes with it
>
> Ok for trunk?
>
> 2018-12-03 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
>
> PR middle-end/64242
> * gcc.c-torture/execute/pr64242.c (foo, bar): New functions.
> (p): Make it void *volatile instead of volatile void *.
> (q): New variable.
> (main): Add a dummy 32-byte aligned variable and escape its address.
> Don't require that the two __builtin_alloca (0) calls return the
> same address, just require that their difference is smaller than
> 1024 bytes.
Yea, my tester fell over the new test on multiple targets. THanks for
fixing it up.
OK
jeff
