On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 12:55:55PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 03:48:38AM -0800, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > These testcases currently XPASS on most targets and configs, so let's
> > reduce the noise. Okay for mainline?
>
> Doesn't look like that is the case. obj69 is x86_64, obj70 is i686.
> grep '\(41447\|41616\).*execution' obj{69,70}/gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum
> obj69/gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum:XPASS: gcc.dg/guality/pr41447-1.c -O0
> execution test
> obj69/gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum:XPASS: gcc.dg/guality/pr41447-1.c -O1
> execution test
> obj69/gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum:XPASS: gcc.dg/guality/pr41447-1.c -O2
> execution test
> obj69/gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum:XPASS: gcc.dg/guality/pr41447-1.c -O2 -flto
> -fno-use-linker-plugin -flto-partition=none execution test
> obj69/gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum:XPASS: gcc.dg/guality/pr41447-1.c -O2 -flto
> -fuse-linker-plugin -fno-fat-lto-objects execution test
> obj69/gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum:XPASS: gcc.dg/guality/pr41447-1.c -O3
> -fomit-frame-pointer execution test
> obj69/gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum:XPASS: gcc.dg/guality/pr41447-1.c -O3 -g
> execution test
> obj69/gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum:XPASS: gcc.dg/guality/pr41447-1.c -Os
> execution test
> obj69/gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum:XPASS: gcc.dg/guality/pr41616-1.c -O0
> execution test
> obj69/gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum:XPASS: gcc.dg/guality/pr41616-1.c -O1
> execution test
> obj69/gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum:XPASS: gcc.dg/guality/pr41616-1.c -O2
> execution test
> obj69/gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum:XPASS: gcc.dg/guality/pr41616-1.c -O2 -flto
> -fno-use-linker-plugin -flto-partition=none execution test
> obj69/gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum:XFAIL: gcc.dg/guality/pr41616-1.c -O2 -flto
> -fuse-linker-plugin -fno-fat-lto-objects execution test
> obj69/gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum:XPASS: gcc.dg/guality/pr41616-1.c -O3
> -fomit-frame-pointer execution test
> obj69/gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum:XPASS: gcc.dg/guality/pr41616-1.c -O3 -g
> execution test
> obj69/gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum:XPASS: gcc.dg/guality/pr41616-1.c -Os
> execution test
x86_64, 41447 everything passes; 41616 one fail (the one with linker plugin).
This is the situation on most targets (on some there are no fails; on ia64
41447 has one fail, 41616 has five fails).
> obj70/gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum:XPASS: gcc.dg/guality/pr41447-1.c -O0
> execution test
> obj70/gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum:XPASS: gcc.dg/guality/pr41447-1.c -O1
> execution test
> obj70/gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum:XFAIL: gcc.dg/guality/pr41447-1.c -O2
> execution test
> obj70/gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum:XFAIL: gcc.dg/guality/pr41447-1.c -O2 -flto
> execution test
> obj70/gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum:XFAIL: gcc.dg/guality/pr41447-1.c -O2 -flto
> -flto-partition=none execution test
> obj70/gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum:XFAIL: gcc.dg/guality/pr41447-1.c -O3
> -fomit-frame-pointer execution test
> obj70/gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum:XFAIL: gcc.dg/guality/pr41447-1.c -O3 -g
> execution test
> obj70/gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum:XPASS: gcc.dg/guality/pr41447-1.c -Os
> execution test
> obj70/gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum:XPASS: gcc.dg/guality/pr41616-1.c -O0
> execution test
> obj70/gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum:XPASS: gcc.dg/guality/pr41616-1.c -O1
> execution test
> obj70/gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum:XPASS: gcc.dg/guality/pr41616-1.c -O2
> execution test
> obj70/gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum:XPASS: gcc.dg/guality/pr41616-1.c -O2 -flto
> execution test
> obj70/gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum:XPASS: gcc.dg/guality/pr41616-1.c -O2 -flto
> -flto-partition=none execution test
> obj70/gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum:XPASS: gcc.dg/guality/pr41616-1.c -O3
> -fomit-frame-pointer execution test
> obj70/gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum:XPASS: gcc.dg/guality/pr41616-1.c -O3 -g
> execution test
> obj70/gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum:XPASS: gcc.dg/guality/pr41616-1.c -Os
> execution test
On a native i686 there are only four fails (the one with linker plugin works).
> At least pr41447 on i686...
> So I'm not sure if this patch would not do more harm than good.
i686 with linker plugin is 4/4 pass/fail, without it is 3/5. Everything else
(on gcc-testresults) is 8/0 (except ia64 -- does anyone care?)
I can xfail 41447 for ia32 if you want? The change for 41616 is good for
everything IMO -- at least we then *see* there is one FAIL :-)
Segher
