On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 1:56 PM Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 01:28:40PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > Ok to skip the test on s390* until then?
> >
> > Can we change the test to do
> >
> > { dg-skip-if "not implemented" { ! { target x86_64-*-* <few others> } } }
> >
> > instead? IIRC it's nowhere implemented but on x86_64.
>
> I don't know, perhaps.
> Seems the target hook is only defined on
> config/i386/i386.c:#undef TARGET_ZERO_CALL_USED_REGS
> config/i386/i386.c:#define TARGET_ZERO_CALL_USED_REGS ix86_zero_call_used_regs
> config/sparc/sparc.c:#undef TARGET_ZERO_CALL_USED_REGS
> config/sparc/sparc.c:#define TARGET_ZERO_CALL_USED_REGS
> sparc_zero_call_used_regs
> but apparently many of the tests actually succeed on various targets that
> don't define those hooks. E.g. I haven't seen them to fail on aarch64,
> on arm only the -10.c fails, on powerpc*/s390* all {8,9,10,11} fail (plus
> 5 is skipped on power*-aix*).
> On ia64 according to testresults {6,7,8,9,10,11} fail, some with ICEs.
> On mipsel according to testresults {9,10,11} fail, some with ICEs.
> On nvptx at least 1-9 succeed, 10-11 don't know, don't have assert.h around.
>
> So, do we want to fill in negative dg-skip-if for the 6-11 tests or
> positive? In any case, is there any hope any of the maintainers or the
> original submitter will change anything for GCC 12, or are we going to end
> up with a very narrowly supported feature?
It looks like the latter - I've seen no attempt by the original authors to make
the feature work on more targets than they cared for.
Richard.
> Jakub
>
