On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 11:11:30PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 07:27:57PM +0200, Benjamin Priour via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> > Thanks for the report,
> >
> > After investigation it seems the location of the new dejagnu directive for
> > C++ differs depending on the configuration.
> > The expected warning is still emitted, but its location differ slightly.
> > I expect it to be not an issue per se of the analyzer, but a divergence in
> > the FE between the two configurations.
>
> I think the divergence is whether called_by_test_5b returns the struct
> in registers or in memory. If in memory (like in the x86_64 -m32 case), we
> have
> [compound-assignment-1.c:71:21] D.3191 = called_by_test_5b (); [return slot
> optimization]
> [compound-assignment-1.c:71:21 discrim 1] D.3191 ={v} {CLOBBER(eol)};
> [compound-assignment-1.c:72:1] return;
> in the IL, while if in registers (like x86_64 -m64 case), just
> [compound-assignment-1.c:71:21] D.3591 = called_by_test_5b ();
> [compound-assignment-1.c:72:1] return;
>
> If you just want to avoid the differences, putting } on the same line as the
> call might be a usable workaround for that.
Here is the workaround in patch form. Tested on x86_64-linux -m32/-m64, ok
for trunk?
2023-09-12 Jakub Jelinek <[email protected]>
PR testsuite/111377
* c-c++-common/analyzer/compound-assignment-1.c (test_5b): Move
closing } to the same line as the call to work-around differences in
diagnostics line.
--- gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/analyzer/compound-assignment-1.c.jj
2023-09-11 11:05:47.523727789 +0200
+++ gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/analyzer/compound-assignment-1.c 2023-09-12
08:58:52.854231161 +0200
@@ -68,5 +68,8 @@ called_by_test_5b (void)
void test_5b (void)
{
- called_by_test_5b ();
-} /* { dg-warning "leak of '<anonymous>.ptr_wrapper::ptr'" "" { target c++ } }
*/
+ called_by_test_5b (); }
+/* { dg-warning "leak of '<anonymous>.ptr_wrapper::ptr'" "" { target c++ } .-1
} */
+/* The closing } above is intentionally on the same line as the call, because
+ otherwise the exact line of the diagnostics depends on whether the
+ called_by_test_5b () call satisfies aggregate_value_p or not. */
Jakub
