On 03/10/2017 09:20 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 03/10/2017 05:57 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
Hi Segher,
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 11:56:39AM +0100, Rainer Orth wrote:
Segher Boessenkool <seg...@kernel.crashing.org> writes:
As stated in the PR, this test now passes on aarch64, ia64, powerpc,
and s390x. This patch disables the xfails for those targets.
As I'd mentioned in PR tree-optimization/78775, the test XPASSes on
SPARC, too.
Tested on powerpc64-linux {-m32,-m64}. Is this okay for trunk?
[...]
2017-02-09 Segher Boessenkool <seg...@kernel.crashing.org>
gcc/testsuite/
PR testsuite/79356
* gcc.dg/attr-alloc_size-11.c: Don't xfail on aarch64, ia64,
powerpc,
or s390x.
TBH, I'd strongly prefer to have a proper analysis instead of just
un-xfail-ing the test on an ever growing apparently random list of
targets.
Yeah, I agree. I thought it was just another test that stopped failing,
but it seems to fail in two ways now, making the testcase succeed?
Lovely. Please consider this patch withdrawn.
I just noticed that nothing has happened at all in a month, so anything
is better than the tests XPASSing on a number of targets.
So the patch is ok for mainline with sparc*-*-* added to the target
lists and a reference to PR testsuite/79356 in the comment.
I'd still be very grateful if Martin could have a look what's really
going on here, though.
Sorry, I haven't had a chance to look more deeply into why these
assertions pass on some targets and fail on others. There is at
least one bug that tracks a VRP problem that manifests only on
some targets and not others (79054). I don't know if this is
a symptom of the same bug or something different. I'll see if
I can find some time to isolate it.
It could well be a BRANCH_COST effect. BRANCH_COST is probably the most
annoying target property that bleeds into the tree/gimple world. From
looking at the gimple in the BZ that could well be the case.
See logical_op_short_circuit for how this is often dealt with in the
testsuite.
jeff
