Ian Lance Taylor <i...@golang.org> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Michael Hudson-Doyle
> <michael.hud...@canonical.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 18 Jan 2014 07:50, "Yufeng Zhang" <yufeng.zh...@arm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Also can you please try to add some new test(s)? It may not be that
>>> straightforward to add non-C/C++ tests, but give it a try.
>>
>> Can you give some hints? Like at least where in the tree such a test would
>> go? I don't know this code at all.
>
> There is already a test in libgo, of course.
>
> I think it would be pretty hard to write a test that doesn't something
> like what libgo does. The problem is that GCC is entirely consistent
> with and without your patch. You could add a Go test that passes an
> array in gcc/testsuite/go.go-torture/execute/ easily enough, but it
> would be quite hard to add a test that doesn't pass whether or not
> your patch is applied.
I think it would have to be a code generation test, i.e. that compiling
something like
func second(e [2]int64) int64 {
return e[1]
}
does not access memory or something along those lines. I'll have a look
next week.
Cheers,
mwh
