On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 04:46:04PM +0100, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
> On 23/04/2025 16:22, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 03:57:58PM +0100, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
> > > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/pr116479.c
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
> > > +/* PR 116479 */
> > > +/* { dg-do run } */
> > > +/* { dg-additional-options "-O -funroll-loops -finline-stringops
> > > -fmodulo-sched --param=max-iterations-computation-cost=637924687 -static
> > > -std=c23" } */
> > > +_BitInt (13577) b;
> > > +
> > > +void
> > > +foo (char *ret)
> > > +{
> > > + __builtin_memset (&b, 4, 697);
> > > + *ret = 0;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +int
> > > +main ()
> > > +{
> > > + char x;
> > > + foo (&x);
> > > + for (unsigned i = 0; i < sizeof (x); i++)
> > > + __builtin_printf ("%02x", i[(volatile unsigned char *) &x]);
> >
> > Shouldn't these 2 lines instead be
> > if (x != 0)
> > __builtin_abort ();
> > ?
> >
>
> Fair, I copied the testcase verbatim from the PR, the error-mode was a
> segfault. But I agree a check !=0 with __builtin_abort here seems more
> appropriate. Any opinions on whether I should move it to dg with a bitint
> target?
I think there isn't anything aarch64 specific on the test, so yes,
I'd move it to gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/bitint-123.c,
/* { dg-do run { target bitint } } */
and wrap b/foo definitions into #if __BITINT_MAXWIDTH__ >= 13577
and the main body as well (just in case some target supports smaller maximum
width than that).
Also, drop -static from dg-additional-options?
Jakub
