On 7/24/19 8:17 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: >> Committed in r273783 after retesting and including a test for >> the warning that I had left out of the patch I posted here. >> >> Martin >> >> PS I suspect some of the tests I added might need tweaking on >> big-endian systems. I'll deal with them tomorrow. > > And maybe also strictly aligned targets. A sparc-solaris2.11 cross > shows these failures. It looks like it doesn't like something about > some of the 64 bit stores in the tests. > > FAIL: gcc.dg/strlenopt-70.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized "strlen" 0 > FAIL: gcc.dg/strlenopt-70.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized > "_not_eliminated_" 0 > FAIL: gcc.dg/strlenopt-71.c (test for excess errors) > FAIL: gcc.dg/strlenopt-72.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized "strlen" 0 > FAIL: gcc.dg/strlenopt-72.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized > "_not_eliminated_" 0
visium-elf: > New tests that FAIL (16 tests): > > visium-sim: gcc.dg/Wstringop-overflow-14.c (test for warnings, line 24) > visium-sim: gcc.dg/Wstringop-overflow-14.c (test for excess errors) > visium-sim: gcc.dg/strlenopt-70.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized > "_not_eliminated_" 0 > visium-sim: gcc.dg/strlenopt-70.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized "strlen" 0 > visium-sim: gcc.dg/strlenopt-72.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized > "_not_eliminated_" 0 > visium-sim: gcc.dg/strlenopt-72.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized "strlen" 0
