I'll send it. It is not too slow. I just figured I would try to fix the others but I get that it is easier for you to see changes in steps.
Brian Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Friday, February 26, 2021 8:36 AM, David Malcolm <dmalc...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Fri, 2021-02-26 at 04:23 +0000, brian.sobulefsky wrote: > > > Hi, > > I have implemented the discussed change, bootstrapped, and run the > > testsuite. I > > would be submitting except to my disappointment I saw failures > > increase by 4. As > > it turns out, these "failures" are actually passes that had been > > marked "xfail" > > and "TRUE" "desired" in the testsuite. The items in question are in > > testsuite > > files gcc.dg/analyzer/operations.c and params.c. In particular > > operations.c > > is only partially fixed because, as I have described, I thus far have > > only added > > cases for PLUS and MINUS. As you can see in that test file, you have > > some tests > > involving multiplication and division. My question is, before > > bothering to > > submit would you like me to just add handlers for these? I guess it > > will save us > > a patch cycle. > > Can you post what you have so far? > > It's easier for me to understand a patch by looking at the patch, > rather than a description of a patch, if that makes sense. > > Is the issue that doing a full bootstrap&test cycle is too slow? If so > I'm fine with you posting preliminary patches for discussion if you're > upfront about the ones that haven't been through a full bootstrap&test > run. Also, would it help if you had access to the GCC compiler farm? > There are some very fast machines there. > > (that said, I'm meant to be taking a day off today so I ought to sign > off for now) > > Dave > > > Also, your comment regarding overflows is well taken, but I think we > > should fix > > the overall problem first, then worry about the overflow corner case. > > Brian
