On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 2:58 AM, David Malcolm <dmalc...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-04-24 at 15:46 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 03/10/14 13:22, David Malcolm wrote:
>> > Gimple function dumps contain the types of parameters, but not of the
>> > return type.
>> >
>> > The attached patch fixes this omission; here's an example of the
>> > before/after diff:
>> > $ diff -up /tmp/pr23401.c.004t.gimple.old /tmp/pr23401.c.004t.gimple.new
>> > --- /tmp/pr23401.c.004t.gimple.old 2014-03-10 13:40:08.972063541 -0400
>> > +++ /tmp/pr23401.c.004t.gimple.new 2014-03-10 13:39:49.346515464 -0400
>> > @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
>> > +int
>> > ffff (int i)
>> > {
>> > int D.1731;
>> >
>> >
>> > Successfully bootstrapped and regrtested on x86_64 Linux (Fedora 20).
>> >
>> > A couple of test cases needed tweaking, since they were counting the
>> > number of occurrences of "int" in the gimple dump, which thus changed
>> > for functions returning int (like the one above).
>> >
>> > OK for next stage 1?
>> Conceptually OK. As Richi notes, the work here is in fixing up the
>> testsuite. I didn't see a reply to Richi's question, particularly WRT
>> the Fortran testsuite.
>
> I'm attaching a revised version of the patch which adds the use of
> TDF_SLIM (though it didn't appear to be necessary in the test I did of a
> function returning a struct).
>
> Successfully bootstrapped & regrtested on x86_64 Linux (Fedora 20),
> using:
> --enable-languages=c,c++,objc,obj-c++,java,fortran,ada,go,lto
>
> I didn't see any new failures from this in the testsuite, in particular
> gfortran.sum. Here's a comparison of the before/after test results,
> generated using my "jamais-vu" tool [1], with comments added by me
> inline:
>
> Comparing 16 common .sum files
> ------------------------------
>
> gcc/testsuite/ada/acats/acats.sum : total: 2320 PASS: 2320
> gcc/testsuite/g++/g++.sum : total: 90421 FAIL: 3 PASS: 86969 XFAIL: 445
> UNSUPPORTED: 3004
> gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum : total: 110458 FAIL: 45 PASS: 108292 XFAIL: 265
> XPASS: 33 UNSUPPORTED: 1823
> gcc/testsuite/gfortran/gfortran.sum : total: 45717 PASS: 45600 XFAIL: 52
> UNSUPPORTED: 65
> gcc/testsuite/gnat/gnat.sum : total: 1255 PASS: 1234 XFAIL: 18 UNSUPPORTED: 3
> gcc/testsuite/go/go.sum : total: 7266 PASS: 7258 XFAIL: 1 UNTESTED: 6
> UNSUPPORTED: 1
> gcc/testsuite/obj-c++/obj-c++.sum : total: 1450 PASS: 1354 XFAIL: 10
> UNSUPPORTED: 86
> gcc/testsuite/objc/objc.sum : total: 2973 PASS: 2893 XFAIL: 6 UNSUPPORTED: 74
> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/boehm-gc/testsuite/boehm-gc.sum : total: 13 PASS:
> 12 UNSUPPORTED: 1
> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/libatomic/testsuite/libatomic.sum : total: 54 PASS:
> 54
> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/libffi/testsuite/libffi.sum : total: 1856 PASS:
> 1801 UNSUPPORTED: 55
> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/libgo/libgo.sum : total: 122 PASS: 122
> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.sum : total: 2420 PASS:
> 2420
> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/libitm/testsuite/libitm.sum : total: 30 PASS: 26
> XFAIL: 3 UNSUPPORTED: 1
> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/libjava/testsuite/libjava.sum : total: 2586 PASS:
> 2582 XFAIL: 4
> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/libstdc++.sum : total: 10265
> PASS: 10000 XFAIL: 41 UNSUPPORTED: 224
>
> (...i.e. the totals were unchanged between unpatched/patched for all of
> the .sum files; and yes, Fortran was tested. Should there be a
> gcj.sum?)
>
> Tests that went away in gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum: 2
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> PASS: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr23401.c scan-tree-dump-times gimple "int" 5
> PASS: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr27810.c scan-tree-dump-times gimple "int" 3
>
> Tests appeared in gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum: 2
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> PASS: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr23401.c scan-tree-dump-times gimple "int" 6
> PASS: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr27810.c scan-tree-dump-times gimple "int" 4
>
>
> (...my comparison tool isn't smart enough yet to tie these "went
> away"/"appeared" results together; they reflect the fixups from the
> patch).
>
> Tests that went away in gcc/testsuite/go/go.sum: 2
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> PASS: go.test/test/dwarf/dwarf.dir/main.go (lots of refs to path of build)
> compilation, -O2 -g
> PASS: go.test/test/dwarf/dwarf.dir/main.go (lots of refs to path of build)
> execution, -O2 -g
>
> Tests appeared in gcc/testsuite/go/go.sum: 2
> --------------------------------------------
>
> PASS: go.test/test/dwarf/dwarf.dir/main.go (lots of refs to path of build)
> compilation, -O2 -g
> PASS: go.test/test/dwarf/dwarf.dir/main.go (lots of refs to path of build)
> execution, -O2 -g
>
> (...I hand edited the above, this main.go test embeds numerous paths,
> which change between the two builds; so nothing really changed here).
>
>
> Are the above results sane?
Yes.
> I'm not sure why I didn't see the failures Richi described; the patch
> does appear to work (though again, should there be a gcj.sum? Did I miss
> any frontends?)
Maybe I dumped
int foo (...
vs. your
int
foo (...
and that made the difference.
> OK for trunk?
Ok.
Thanks,
Richard.
> Dave
>
> [1] https://github.com/davidmalcolm/jamais-vu
