Re: [PATCH] Add selftest for pretty-print.c (v2)

2016-06-09 Thread David Edelsohn
On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 1:53 PM, David Malcolm wrote: > On Thu, 2016-06-09 at 11:22 -0600, Jeff Law wrote: >> On 06/09/2016 07:30 AM, David Edelsohn wrote: >> > >> > The self-tests specifically abort the build and break bootstrap >> > upon >> > failure. Most other changes that inadvertently have b

Re: [PATCH] Add selftest for pretty-print.c (v2)

2016-06-09 Thread David Malcolm
On Thu, 2016-06-09 at 11:22 -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > On 06/09/2016 07:30 AM, David Edelsohn wrote: > > > > The self-tests specifically abort the build and break bootstrap > > upon > > failure. Most other changes that inadvertently have bugs or tickle > > a > > latent issue in a target will introd

Re: [PATCH] Add selftest for pretty-print.c (v2)

2016-06-09 Thread Jeff Law
On 06/09/2016 07:30 AM, David Edelsohn wrote: The self-tests specifically abort the build and break bootstrap upon failure. Most other changes that inadvertently have bugs or tickle a latent issue in a target will introduce some additional testsuite failures, not a bootstrap failure. x86 devel

Re: [PATCH] Add selftest for pretty-print.c (v2)

2016-06-09 Thread David Edelsohn
On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 9:10 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 09:02:27AM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: >> > On 06/09/2016 02:21 PM, David Edelsohn wrote: >> > >> >> This is a completely unacceptable way to introduce these sel

Re: [PATCH] Add selftest for pretty-print.c (v2)

2016-06-09 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 09:02:27AM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote: > On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > > On 06/09/2016 02:21 PM, David Edelsohn wrote: > > > >> This is a completely unacceptable way to introduce these self-tests. > >> Please stop adding self-tests that only are te

Re: [PATCH] Add selftest for pretty-print.c (v2)

2016-06-09 Thread David Edelsohn
On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 06/09/2016 02:21 PM, David Edelsohn wrote: > >> This is a completely unacceptable way to introduce these self-tests. >> Please stop adding self-tests that only are tested on x86 Linux and >> cause bootstrap failures. > > > We have no requir

Re: [PATCH] Add selftest for pretty-print.c (v2)

2016-06-09 Thread Bernd Schmidt
On 06/09/2016 02:21 PM, David Edelsohn wrote: This is a completely unacceptable way to introduce these self-tests. Please stop adding self-tests that only are tested on x86 Linux and cause bootstrap failures. We have no requirement to test patches on more than one target. I think your request

Re: [PATCH] Add selftest for pretty-print.c (v2)

2016-06-09 Thread David Edelsohn
This caused a bootstrap failure on AIX, and possible other architectures. /tmp/20160608/./gcc/xgcc -B/tmp/20160608/./gcc/ -xc -S -c /dev/null -fself-test /nasfarm/edelsohn/src/src/gcc/pretty-print.c:1246: FAIL: ASSERT_STREQ (expected, pp_formatted_text (&pp)) cc1: internal compiler error: in fail

Re: [PATCH] Add selftest for pretty-print.c (v2)

2016-06-08 Thread Bernd Schmidt
On 06/08/2016 02:56 AM, David Malcolm wrote: Good idea. In the following I did it by adding 0x12345678 as a successor argument to each test. I chose that bit pattern on the grounds that each nybble is unique and non-zero. I printed them with %x to make it easier (I hope) to track down problems.

[PATCH] Add selftest for pretty-print.c (v2)

2016-06-07 Thread David Malcolm
On Tue, 2016-06-07 at 12:02 +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 06/06/2016 11:28 PM, David Malcolm wrote: > > + assert_pp_format ("0xcafebabe", "%wx", > > (HOST_WIDE_INT)0xcafebabe); > > More interesting tests would be to have multiple arguments to test > that > we really used the right size for the