On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 at 00:03, David Malcolm <dmalc...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 2021-06-09 at 11:00 -0400, David Malcolm wrote: > > On Wed, 2021-06-09 at 16:17 +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote: > > > On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 at 21:34, David Malcolm via Gcc-patches > > > <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > This patch verifies the previous fix for bitfield sizes by > > > > implementing > > > > enough support for bitfields in the analyzer to get the test > > > > cases > > > > to pass. > > > > > > > > The patch implements support in the analyzer for reading from a > > > > BIT_FIELD_REF, and support for folding BIT_AND_EXPR of a mask, to > > > > handle > > > > the cases generated in tests. > > > > > > > > The existing bitfields tests in data-model-1.c turned out to rely > > > > on > > > > undefined behavior, in that they were assigning values to a > > > > signed > > > > bitfield that were outside of the valid range of values. I > > > > believe > > > > that > > > > that's why we were seeing target-specific differences in the test > > > > results (PR analyzer/99212). The patch updates the test to > > > > remove > > > > the > > > > undefined behaviors. > > > > > > > > Successfully bootstrapped & regrtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. > > > > Lightly tested with cris-elf. > > > > > > > > Pushed to trunk as r12-1303- > > > > gd3b1ef7a83c0c0cd5b20a1dd1714b868f3d2b442. > > [...] > > > > > > This patch is causing regressions / new failures on armeb (and > > > other > > > targets according to gcc-testresults): > > > > > > FAIL: gcc.dg/analyzer/bitfields-1.c (test for excess errors) > > > Excess errors: > > > /gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/analyzer/bitfields-1.c:24:3: warning: UNKNOWN > > > /gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/analyzer/bitfields-1.c:26:3: warning: UNKNOWN > > > /gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/analyzer/bitfields-1.c:29:3: warning: UNKNOWN > > > /gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/analyzer/bitfields-1.c:31:3: warning: UNKNOWN > > > /gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/analyzer/bitfields-1.c:36:3: warning: FALSE > > > /gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/analyzer/bitfields-1.c:41:3: warning: FALSE > > > /gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/analyzer/bitfields-1.c:81:3: warning: UNKNOWN > > > /gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/analyzer/bitfields-1.c:83:3: warning: UNKNOWN > > > /gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/analyzer/bitfields-1.c:85:3: warning: UNKNOWN > > > /gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/analyzer/bitfields-1.c:87:3: warning: UNKNOWN > > > /gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/analyzer/bitfields-1.c:92:3: warning: FALSE > > > /gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/analyzer/bitfields-1.c:94:3: warning: FALSE > > > /gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/analyzer/bitfields-1.c:96:3: warning: FALSE > > > /gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/analyzer/bitfields-1.c:113:3: warning: > > > UNKNOWN > > > /gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/analyzer/bitfields-1.c:115:3: warning: > > > UNKNOWN > > > /gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/analyzer/bitfields-1.c:117:3: warning: > > > > > UNKNOWN > > > /gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/analyzer/bitfields-1.c:119:3: warning: > > > UNKNOWN > > > /gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/analyzer/bitfields-1.c:121:3: warning: > > > UNKNOWN > > > /gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/analyzer/bitfields-1.c:123:3: warning: > > > UNKNOWN > > > /gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/analyzer/bitfields-1.c:125:3: warning: > > > UNKNOWN > > > /gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/analyzer/bitfields-1.c:127:3: warning: > > > UNKNOWN > > > > > > FAIL: gcc.dg/analyzer/data-model-1.c (test for excess errors) > > > Excess errors: > > > /gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/analyzer/data-model-1.c:947:3: warning: > > > UNKNOWN > > > /gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/analyzer/data-model-1.c:950:3: warning: > > > UNKNOWN > > > /gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/analyzer/data-model-1.c:965:3: warning: > > > UNKNOWN > > > /gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/analyzer/data-model-1.c:968:3: warning: > > > UNKNOWN > > > > > > For instance with target armeb-none-linux-gnueabihf > > > > > > Can you check? > > > > Sorry about this; I can reproduce the behavior and am investigating. > > > > These should be fixed by r12-1491- > gec3fafa9ec7d16b9d89076efd3bac1d1af0502b8; see: > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-June/572837.html > (I forgot to set the reply-to to this when sending that, oops) > > Please let me know if either of these tests are still failing on any > target. > > Sorry again about the breakage.
Fixed indeed, thanks > > Dave >
