> ..., that means that a number of the new test cases are UNSUPPORTED, for
> example, x86_64 GNU/Linux:
>
> +UNSUPPORTED: c-c++-common/musttail1.c -Wc++-compat
> +UNSUPPORTED: c-c++-common/musttail12.c -Wc++-compat
> +PASS: c-c++-common/musttail13.c -Wc++-compat (test for errors, line 4)
> +PASS: c-c++-common/musttail13.c -Wc++-compat (test for excess errors)
> +UNSUPPORTED: c-c++-common/musttail2.c -Wc++-compat
> +UNSUPPORTED: c-c++-common/musttail3.c -Wc++-compat
> +UNSUPPORTED: c-c++-common/musttail4.c -Wc++-compat
> +PASS: c-c++-common/musttail5.c -Wc++-compat (test for errors, line 17)
> +PASS: c-c++-common/musttail5.c -Wc++-compat (test for warnings, line
> 10)
> +PASS: c-c++-common/musttail5.c -Wc++-compat (test for warnings, line
> 11)
> +PASS: c-c++-common/musttail5.c -Wc++-compat (test for warnings, line
> 12)
> +PASS: c-c++-common/musttail5.c -Wc++-compat (test for warnings, line
> 24)
> +PASS: c-c++-common/musttail5.c -Wc++-compat (test for warnings, line
> 25)
> +PASS: c-c++-common/musttail5.c -Wc++-compat (test for warnings, line
> 26)
> +PASS: c-c++-common/musttail5.c -Wc++-compat (test for warnings, line
> 5)
> +PASS: c-c++-common/musttail5.c -Wc++-compat (test for warnings, line
> 6)
> +PASS: c-c++-common/musttail5.c -Wc++-compat (test for excess errors)
> +UNSUPPORTED: c-c++-common/musttail7.c -Wc++-compat
> +UNSUPPORTED: c-c++-common/musttail8.c -Wc++-compat
>
> (Similarly for their C++ testing.)
>
> +UNSUPPORTED: g++.dg/musttail10.C
> +UNSUPPORTED: g++.dg/musttail11.C
> +UNSUPPORTED: g++.dg/musttail6.C
> +UNSUPPORTED: g++.dg/musttail9.C
>
> ..., and even a few existing test cases "regress" from PASS to
> UNSUPPORTED:
>
> [-PASS:-]{+UNSUPPORTED:+} gcc.dg/plugin/must-tail-call-1.c
> -fplugin=./must_tail_call_plugin.so[-(test for excess errors)-]
> [-PASS:-]{+UNSUPPORTED:+} gcc.dg/plugin/must-tail-call-2.c
> -fplugin=./must_tail_call_plugin.so[-(test for errors, line 18)-]
> [-PASS: gcc.dg/plugin/must-tail-call-2.c
> -fplugin=./must_tail_call_plugin.so (test for errors, line 33)-]
> [-PASS: gcc.dg/plugin/must-tail-call-2.c
> -fplugin=./must_tail_call_plugin.so (test for errors, line 40)-]
> [-PASS: gcc.dg/plugin/must-tail-call-2.c
> -fplugin=./must_tail_call_plugin.so (test for errors, line 49)-]
> [-PASS: gcc.dg/plugin/must-tail-call-2.c
> -fplugin=./must_tail_call_plugin.so (test for errors, line 58)-]
> [-PASS: gcc.dg/plugin/must-tail-call-2.c
> -fplugin=./must_tail_call_plugin.so (test for excess errors)-]
>
> Similarly for ppc64le GNU/Linux.
>
> Is that intentional?
Thanks. I will take a look. At least on x86_64-linux everything should
be supported. On powerpc and ARM I expect some unsupported.
But the previous test cases shouldn't have changed. Maybe we need
more tail_call dejagnu tests that also enable -O2.
The whole area is unfortunately somewhat of a mine field because of
lots of varying restrictions on tail calls, both with frontends
and targets.
-Andi
