[Bug testsuite/97680] [11 Regression] new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97680

Richard Biener  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Summary|new test case   |[11 Regression] new test
   |c-c++-common/zero-scratch-r |case
   |egs-10.c in r11-4578 has|c-c++-common/zero-scratch-r
   |excess errors   |egs-10.c in r11-4578 has
   ||excess errors
   Last reconfirmed||2020-11-03
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
 Ever confirmed|0   |1

--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener  ---
Err, please dg-skip the tests for ! supported targets.  They also fail on
x86_64 with -m32 btw.

[Bug testsuite/97680] [11 Regression] new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors

[qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97680

--- Comment #3 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> Err, please dg-skip the tests for ! supported targets.  They also fail on
> x86_64 with -m32 btw.

x86_64 with -m32 failure should be already fixed by Uros already.

[Bug testsuite/97680] [11 Regression] new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors

[rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97680

rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org  
---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> Err, please dg-skip the tests for ! supported targets.  They also fail on
> x86_64 with -m32 btw.
The point is that these tests are flushing out which those targets are,
since nobody knows at present.  Most targets are supported naturally:
it's certainly not just an x86_64 or aarch64 thing.  But some targets
have special requirements that mean they would need to define a simple
hook in order to support the option.

So if this sorry() fires, we need to decide whether to add support
or live with the option being unsupported for that target combination.

[Bug testsuite/97680] [11 Regression] new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97680

Richard Biener  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener  ---
*** Bug 97699 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug testsuite/97680] [11 Regression] new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97680

Richard Biener  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Target|powerpc64*-linux-gnu,powerp |arm
   |c-apple-darwin, arm |

--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener  ---
Meanwhile the testcase has

/* { dg-skip-if "not implemented" { powerpc*-*-* } } */

but it will still fail on all targets but x86_64 (and now powerpc).  Qinzhao,
what's the list of targets this is supported?

We could add a

/* { dg-final { dg-message "sorry, unimplemented" { target { ! {  } } } }
*/

or so to make the sorry expected.

[Bug testsuite/97680] [11 Regression] new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97680

Richard Biener  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Priority|P3  |P1

[Bug testsuite/97680] [11 Regression] new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors

[qing.zhao at oracle dot com via Gcc-bugs]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97680

--- Comment #10 from Qing Zhao  ---
> but it will still fail on all targets but x86_64 (and now powerpc).  Qinzhao,
> what's the list of targets this is supported?

I believe that the targets that currently support this feature are:
x86-64
aarch64
sparc

The original patch supported x86-64 and aarch64, later the following patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-cvs/2020-December/338342.html


Support sparc

[Bug testsuite/97680] [11 Regression] new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors

[cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97680

--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits  ---
The master branch has been updated by Christophe Lyon :

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0211fbb610c19d728c68a0c6c603826059ea9af9

commit r11-7716-g0211fbb610c19d728c68a0c6c603826059ea9af9
Author: Christophe Lyon 
Date:   Thu Mar 18 09:58:52 2021 +

testsuite: Skip c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c on arm

As discussed in PR 97680, -fzero-call-used-regs is not supported on
arm.

Skip this test to avoid failure reports.

2021-03-18  Christophe Lyon  

gcc/testsuite/
PR testsuite/97680
* c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c: Skip on arm

[Bug testsuite/97680] [11 Regression] new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97680

Jakub Jelinek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek  ---
So fixed?

[Bug testsuite/97680] [11 Regression] new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors

[clyon at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97680

--- Comment #13 from Christophe Lyon  ---
For arm yes, but according to gcc-testresults, it's failing on ia64 and s390
too, at least.

[Bug testsuite/97680] [11 Regression] new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors

[cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97680

--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits  ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0989e99470c2a6797bacf6d04888bc9a46a632a8

commit r11-7922-g0989e99470c2a6797bacf6d04888bc9a46a632a8
Author: Jakub Jelinek 
Date:   Wed Mar 31 08:55:38 2021 +0200

testsuite: Disable zero-scratch-regs-{8, 9, 10, 11}.c on all but ...
[PR97680]

Seems the target hook is only defined on
config/i386/i386.c:#undef TARGET_ZERO_CALL_USED_REGS
config/i386/i386.c:#define TARGET_ZERO_CALL_USED_REGS
ix86_zero_call_used_regs
config/sparc/sparc.c:#undef TARGET_ZERO_CALL_USED_REGS
config/sparc/sparc.c:#define TARGET_ZERO_CALL_USED_REGS
sparc_zero_call_used_regs
but apparently many of the tests actually succeed on various targets that
don't define those hooks.  E.g. I haven't seen them to fail on aarch64,
on arm only the -10.c fails, on powerpc*/s390* all {8,9,10,11} fail (plus
5 is skipped on power*-aix*).
On ia64 according to testresults {6,7,8,9,10,11} fail, some with ICEs.
On mipsel according to testresults {9,10,11} fail, some with ICEs.
On nvptx at least 1-9 succeed, 10-11 don't know, don't have assert.h
around.

I've kept {5,6,7} with aix,ia64,ia64 skipped because those seems like
outliers, it works pretty much everywhere but on those.
The rest have known good targets.

2021-03-31  Jakub Jelinek  

PR testsuite/97680
* c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-6.c: Skip on ia64.
* c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-7.c: Likewise.
* c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-8.c: Change from dg-skip-if of
selected unsupported triplets to all targets but selected triplets
of supported targets.
* c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-9.c: Likewise.
* c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c: Likewise.
* c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-11.c: Likewise.

[Bug testsuite/97680] [11 Regression] new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors

[iains at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97680

--- Comment #5 from Iain Sandoe  ---
I added xfail-if for powerpc-darwin (8,9, 10 and 11).

https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-cvs/2020-November/336720.html

Since i don't think I will have time this cycle to implement it (there are much
more pressing demands on the time) - at least the tests will then XPASS if/when
the impl. is done.  Presumably anyone else in the same situation could append
their target to the XFAIL.

[Bug testsuite/97680] [11 Regression] new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors

[iains at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97680

--- Comment #6 from Iain Sandoe  ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #5)
> I added xfail-if for powerpc-darwin (8,9, 10 and 11).
> 
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-cvs/2020-November/336720.html
> 
> Since i don't think I will have time this cycle to implement it (there are
> much more pressing demands on the time) - at least the tests will then XPASS
> if/when the impl. is done. 

Unfortunately, that's not enough; the XFAIL only covers the run and we have to
skip the tests completely to avoid testsuite output noise (which I've done for
powerpc-darwin).

[Bug testsuite/97680] [11 Regression] new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97680

--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener  ---
maybe do a dg-skip-if .. { target ! { positive list } }