> On GCC we use -gnato on tests known to need it
> (/gcc/testsuite/ada/acats/overflow.lst) since we want to test
> flags the typical GCC/Ada user does use and not what official validation
> requires (which is -gnato -gnatE IIRC).
But you're running a test that's *part* of the official validation a
> Richard, Arnaud, could you check amongst GNAT experts if for such types
> (non power of two modulus), it's not worth enabling overflow checks by
> default now that we have VRP doing non trivial optimisations? People
> using non power of two modulus are not caring for performance anyway, so
> havi
On Sat, 2006-03-04 at 07:29 -0500, Robert Dewar wrote:
> Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-03-02 at 01:34 +0100, Robert Dewar wrote:
> >> Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> >>
> >>> VRP might now force us to update the overflow list but I'm not sure
> >>> about switching to a full -gnato everywhere.
> >>
Laurent GUERBY wrote:
On Thu, 2006-03-02 at 01:34 +0100, Robert Dewar wrote:
Laurent GUERBY wrote:
VRP might now force us to update the overflow list but I'm not sure
about switching to a full -gnato everywhere.
well you can expect some fiddling each version if you work this way
The list fo
> I missed the fact that the test was already in overflow.lst :)
No worries, so did I. :-)
--
Eric Botcazou
On Thu, 2006-03-02 at 01:34 +0100, Robert Dewar wrote:
> Laurent GUERBY wrote:
>
> > VRP might now force us to update the overflow list but I'm not sure
> > about switching to a full -gnato everywhere.
>
> well you can expect some fiddling each version if you work this way
The list for -gnato te
On Thu, 2006-03-02 at 14:04 +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > it's not a bug, -gnato is clearly documented as required in this
> > case, what makes you think otherwise?
>
> Laurent's message.
I missed the fact that the test was already in overflow.lst :)
Laurent
> it's not a bug, -gnato is clearly documented as required in this
> case, what makes you think otherwise?
Laurent's message.
Sorry about that, -gnato indeed has always been specified for this test.
--
Eric Botcazou
The test still fails at -O2 -gnato... All the current FAIL
still fail with -gnato, and we even have two additional failures
(unexpected constraint_error):
c45532e
c45532g
So we have to look carefully at what the front-end does with modular
types here.
Note that cxa4025, cxa4028, cxa4033 are lik
Eric Botcazou wrote:
Richard, Arnaud, could you check amongst GNAT experts if for such types
(non power of two modulus), it's not worth enabling overflow checks by
default now that we have VRP doing non trivial optimisations? People
using non power of two modulus are not caring for performance an
Laurent GUERBY wrote:
VRP might now force us to update the overflow list but I'm not sure
about switching to a full -gnato everywhere.
well you can expect some fiddling each version if you work this way
> Richard, Arnaud, could you check amongst GNAT experts if for such types
> (non power of two modulus), it's not worth enabling overflow checks by
> default now that we have VRP doing non trivial optimisations? People
> using non power of two modulus are not caring for performance anyway, so
> havi
On GCC we use -gnato on tests known to need it
(/gcc/testsuite/ada/acats/overflow.lst) since we want to test flags
the typical GCC/Ada user does use and not what official validation
requires (which is -gnato -gnatE IIRC).
Well that would make the most sense if the code in the ACATS
Laurent GUERBY wrote:
Ok this test is checking a corner case of the language, namely
non power of two modular types.
It looks like this one needs overflow checking to pass (-gnato):
All ACATS tests should be run with -gnatE -gnato
On Wed, 2006-03-01 at 18:48 -0500, Richard Kenner wrote:
> It looks like this one needs overflow checking to pass (-gnato):
>
> ACATS should aways be run with -gnato since that's the only way to
> get the behavior mandated by RM. Why are we running it without it? Is
> this new? Certainly -g
It looks like this one needs overflow checking to pass (-gnato):
ACATS should aways be run with -gnato since that's the only way to
get the behavior mandated by RM. Why are we running it without it? Is
this new? Certainly -gnato was used during validations.
Richard, Arnaud, could you c
Ok this test is checking a corner case of the language, namely
non power of two modular types.
It looks like this one needs overflow checking to pass (-gnato):
$ gnatmake -f -I../../../support/ c460008.adb
gcc -c -I../../../support/ c460008.adb
gcc -c -I./ -I../../../support/ -I-
/home/guerby/wo
17 matches
Mail list logo
