On January 22, 2021 8:02:28 PM GMT+01:00, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> 
wrote:
>On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 10:12:20AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Sep 2020, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> > these testcases now fails because they contains an invalid type
>puning
>> > that happens via const VALUE_TYPE *v pointer. Since the check
>function
>> > is noinline, modref is needed to trigger the wrong code.
>> > I think it is easiest to fix it by no-strict-aliasing.
>> > 
>> > Regtested x86_64-linux, OK?
>> 
>> OK.
>> 
>> >    * gcc.target/i386/m128-check.h: Add no-strict aliasing to
>> >    CHECK_EXP macro.
>> > 
>> > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/m128-check.h
>b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/m128-check.h
>> > index 48b23328539..6f414b07be7 100644
>> > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/m128-check.h
>> > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/m128-check.h
>> > @@ -78,6 +78,7 @@ typedef union
>> >  
>> >  #define CHECK_EXP(UINON_TYPE, VALUE_TYPE, FMT)            \
>> >  static int                                                \
>> > +__attribute__((optimize ("no-strict-aliasing")))  \
>> >  __attribute__((noinline, unused))                 \
>> >  check_##UINON_TYPE (UINON_TYPE u, const VALUE_TYPE *v)    \
>> >  {                                                 \
>
>On powerpc64le the tests suffer from the exact same issue.
>
>Tested on powerpc64le-linux, ok for trunk?

Ok. 

Richard. 

>2021-01-22  Jakub Jelinek  <ja...@redhat.com>
>
>       * gcc.target/powerpc/m128-check.h (check_##UINON_TYPE): Add
>       optimize ("no-strict-aliasing") attribute.
>
>--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/m128-check.h
>+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/m128-check.h
>@@ -85,6 +85,7 @@ typedef union
> 
> #define CHECK_EXP(UINON_TYPE, VALUE_TYPE, FMT)                \
> static int                                            \
>+__attribute__((optimize ("no-strict-aliasing")))      \
> __attribute__((noinline, unused))                     \
> check_##UINON_TYPE (UINON_TYPE u, const VALUE_TYPE *v)        \
> {                                                     \
>
>
>       Jakub

Reply via email to