On 11/10/16 20:39, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
<snip>
<snip>
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/split-3.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/split-3.c
index 64bbb8c..5ba7616 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/split-3.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/split-3.c
@@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ down (int i, ...)
|| va_arg (ap, int) != 9
|| va_arg (ap, int) != 10)
abort ();
+ va_end (ap);
if (i > 0)
{
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/split-6.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/split-6.c
index b32cf8d..b3016ba 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/split-6.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/split-6.c
@@ -37,6 +37,7 @@ down (int i, ...)
|| va_arg (ap, int) != 9
|| va_arg (ap, int) != 10)
abort ();
+ va_end (ap);
if (i > 0)
{
Is this just undefined behaviour in existing tests?
If so, I recommend you split these testsuite fixes into a separate patch
and submit that separately. It can probably go in much sooner independently
of slit stack support.
Also, I think some tests for split-stack support are appropriate.
At least something that checks that gcc generates the jumps to the appropriate
helper functions?
In theory yes, although it does not really invalidate the test since the
idea is to check for the variadic arguments. Based on your comment I think
it would better to split this patch in 2 with this modifications at first.
Regarding the tests, the go testsuite itself covers pretty much all the
morestack call usage (it indeed showed a lot of issues with some initial
drafts for this patches). So I am not sure how more extensible testsuite
we would like to push for this.
Ah ok then. I won't insist on more calls then.
Thanks,
Kyrill
Thanks,
Kyrill
