On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 5:01 PM, David Malcolm <dmalc...@redhat.com> wrote:
> 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.
Btw, I now see
int
int integer_zerop(const_tree) (const union tree_node * expr)
{
union tree_node * D.86619;
union tree_node * exp;
thus duplicated return type.
So - can you either revert or fix that?
Thanks,
Richard.
