https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80092
Thomas Schwinge <tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target| |nvptx
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2017-03-23
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Schwinge <tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #0)
> Atm, when running for target nvptx, we run into unsupported features in the
> tests.
>
> F.i. in the g++ testsuite:
> ...
> $ grep -c "sorry, unimplemented:" g++.log
> 12693
> ...
... a lot...
> more in detail:
> ...
> $ grep "sorry, unimplemented:" g++.log | sed 's/.*sorry, unimplemented://' |
> dos2unix | sort -u
> converting lambda which uses '...' to function pointer
> global constructors not supported on this target
> global destructors not supported on this target
> indirect jumps are not available on this target
> mangling __underlying_type
> non-trivial designated initializers not supported
> passing arguments to ellipsis of inherited constructor 'B::B(int, ...)
> [inherited from A]'
> target cannot support alloca.
> target cannot support nonlocal goto.
> ...
>
> All those tests are FAILs, while they should be UNSUPPORTED.
>
> In principle, having those as FAILs is not a problem when regression
> testing. We can compare tests results, and only look at changes.
>
> But it's better to introduce effective-target keywords for those features,
> and mark the tests as such. That will reduce the noise rate because of
> unsupported features being used or not due to code generation changes.
But that will be a rather huge effort to do -- and to keep up to date. Is that
really worth it?
