--- Comment #9 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-14 14:46 ---
Fixed.
--
spop at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Comment #8 from sebpop at gmail dot com 2009-01-14 14:45 ---
Subject: Re: FAIL: gcc.dg/graphite/block-3.c (test for excess errors)
> Before closing this pr as fixed, I have a question: usually tests having
> -fdump-* in dg-options are doing some search of patterns in the dumped fil
> Before closing this pr as fixed, I have a question: usually tests having
> -fdump-* in dg-options are doing some search of patterns in the dumped file,
> e.g. in gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr35729.c
>
> /* { dg-options "-Os -fdump-rtl-loop2_invariant" } */
> ...
> /* { dg-final { scan-rtl-dump-times "D
--- Comment #7 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-01-11 11:13 ---
Before closing this pr as fixed, I have a question: usually tests having
-fdump-* in dg-options are doing some search of patterns in the dumped file,
e.g. in gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr35729.c
/* { dg-options "-Os -fdump
--- Comment #6 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-01-10 22:09 ---
> Try make -k check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="graphite.exp=block-3.c"
Thanks, then I get:
Running /opt/gcc/gcc-4.4-work/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/graphite/graphite.exp ...
=== gcc Summary ===
# of expected pass
--- Comment #5 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-10 22:06
---
> I don't know how I can test this file alone without regtesting all gcc (I
> tried: make -k check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="dg.exp=graphite/block-3.c" without
> success).
Try make -k check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="graphite.exp
--- Comment #4 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-01-10 22:03 ---
> Does the attached patch fix the fail?
With the patch the test compiles (it does with M up to 812) and the "Strip
Mining" is done for the second nested loops:
for (s_1=0;s_1<=1;s_1++) {
for (s_3=0;s_3<=1;s_3++) {
--- Comment #2 from sebpop at gmail dot com 2009-01-10 21:32 ---
Subject: Re: FAIL: gcc.dg/graphite/block-3.c (test for excess errors)
Does the attached patch fix the fail?
Thanks,
Sebastian
--- Comment #3 from sebpop at gmail dot com 2009-01-10 21:32 ---
Created an attachm
--- Comment #1 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-01-10 11:49 ---
I have forgotten to say that the failure occurs in 32 bit mode, but disappears
with -m64.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38791
