On Tue, 2014-04-29 at 11:16 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> 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; committed to trunk as r209902.
